Skip to main content

Full text of "EPA FOIA release to Sierra Club - Pruitt Communications & Schedule"

See other formats


From: Barbery, Andrea 

Location: WJC-North Room 3500 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Meet & Greet (ECOS - OP) 

Start Date/Time: Thur 12/21/2017 9:45:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Thur 12/21/2017 10:00:00 PM 


Purpose: For ECOS Officers to meet AA Dravis & other OP officials, and discuss priorities 


Date: Thursday, Dec. 21, 2017 
Time: 4:45 - 5:00 p.m. (Eastern) 


State Participants: 

ECOS President Todd Parfitt, Director, Wyoming DEQ 
ECOS Vice President Becky Keogh, Director, Arkansas DEQ 
ECOS Secretary-Treasurer Jim Macy, Director, Nebraska DEQ 
ERIS President David Paylor, Director, Virginia DEQ 

ECOS Executive Director (and soon-to-be Region 1 Administrator) Alexandra Dapolito 

Dunn 

ECOS Deputy Director Carolyn Hanson 


EPA Participants: 

Samantha Dravis, Associate Administrator, Office of Policy 
Robin Kime, Chief of Staff, OP 
Drew Feely, Senior Counsel, OP 

Bill Nickerson, Acting Director, OP/Office of Regulatory Policy and Management 
Rob Tomiak, Director, Office of Federal Activities 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005453-00001 



Matt Tejada, Director, Office of Environmental Justice 
Matt Dalbey, Director, OP/Office of Sustainable Communities 


Nena Shaw, Sectors Team, OP 
Will Lovell, Policy Advisor, OP 

POC: Andrea Barbery (EPA/OCIR), 202-564-1397 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005453-00002 



From: Delahoyde, Magdelana A. EOP/WHO 

Location: Cordell Hull, EEOB 208 (WAVES link and Call-in info located in Calendar notes) 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: NADA CAFE-GHG 

Start Date/Time: Thur 12/7/2017 10:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Thur 12/7/2017 11:00:00 PM 

Meeting will be with the National Auto Dealers Association. 

All WAVES information is being carried over to the new time and date, so no need to re-enter. 

WAVES link: https://events.whitehouse.gov/?rid=32CCKBXRM6 

Host Dial-In: (202) 395-6392 
Leader Code: 137 0583 
Participant Dial-In: (202) 395-6392 
Participant Code: 442 5615 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005455-00001 



From: Kime, Robin 

Location: Lobby of Trump Hotel 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Coffee with Andrew Rafferty 

Start Date/Time: Tue 11/14/2017 8:30:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Tue 11/14/2017 9:00:00 PM 


Please contact kime.robin@epa.gov with any changes to this appointment. Thank you. 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005456-00001 



From: Kime, Robin 

Location: 3500 WJCN 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Meeting with PotashCorp (PCS) 

Start Date/Time: Tue 11/14/2017 7:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Tue 11/14/2017 7:30:00 PM 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your right as you 
exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 10 minutes prior to the meeting with photo 
IDs to clear Security. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all other 
matters call Robin Kime (202)564-6587. 


Request: We represent PotashCorp, the largest fertilizer company in the world producing potash, 
nitrogen and phosphate. Its subsidiary PCS Phosphate, has two phosphate mines in the US, one 
of which is located in Aurora, North Carolina. This meeting will address the Phosphoric 
Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizer Production RTR and Standards of Performance for 

Phosphate Processing, 80 Fed. Reg. 50386 (August 19, 2015). 


Attendees: 

Edward Newberry, Karen Winters and Jessica DeMonte 


Contact: 


SQUIRE© 

PATTON BOGGS 


Edward J. Newberry 

Global Managing Partner 
Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP 


2550 M Street, NW 


Washington, DC 20037 
T +1 202 457 5285 
O +1 202 457 6000 
F +1 202 457 6315 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005457-00001 



M +1 703 405 4761 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005457-00002 



From: Kime, Robin 

Location: The Williard 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Update with Noel 

Start Date/Time: Tue 11/7/2017 10:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Tue 11/7/2017 10:30:00 PM 


Contact: 

nwblack@southemco.com or 202.578.8337 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005458-00001 



From: Kime, Robin 

Location: DCRoomARN3500/OPEI 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: AGA and NGVA Regulatory Reform Discussion Focusing on the Subpart W Reporting Rule 
and the PCB Rules 

Start Date/Time: Fri 11/3/2017 7:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Fri 11/3/2017 7:30:00 PM 

AGA 05 15 2017 Comments on EPA Rule Review Docket EPA-HQ-QA-2017-0190.pdf 
NGVA ERA Regulatory Review May 2017 Final.pdf 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on 
your right as you exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 10 minutes 
prior to the meeting with photo IDs to clear Security. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all 
other matters call Robin Kime (202)564-6587. 


Attendees: 

Kathryn Clay, Allison Cunningham and Pamela Lacey 


Request: The American Gas Association (AGA) and Natural Gas Vehicles of America 
(NGVA) would like to arrange a follow-up meeting with you to discuss our ideas for 
regulatory reform, as described in our attached comments, filed May 15, 2017 in Docket 
EPA-HQ-OA-2017. AGA’s comments address several programs, but at this meeting, 
we will want to focus on revisions we have suggested to improve: (1) the Subpart W 
reporting rule and (2) the PCB rules. 


Contact: 

Pamela A. Lacey | Chief Regulatory Counsel 
American Gas Association< http://www.aqa.oro > 

400 N. Capitol St., NW | Washington, DC | 20001 

P: 202-824-7340 | M: 202-809-6565 | F: 202-824-9190 | placev@aga.org 

< mailto:placev@aaa.orQ > 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005459-00001 



Electronic Filing: www.regulations.gov 


May 15, 2017 
Ms. Samantha Dravis 

Senior Counsel and Associate Administrator for Policy 
Regulatory Reform Officer for Executive Order 13777 
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 
Washington, DC 20460 

Re: Identification of Regulations for Repeal, Modification or Replacement under Executive 
Order 13777, 82 Fed. Reg. 17793 (April 13, 2017) (EPA Request for Comment) - 

Docket No. EPA-HQ-OA-2017-0190 

Dear Ms. Davis: 

The American Gas Association (AGA) appreciates the opportunity to suggest how certain 
EPA regulations could be repealed, modified or replaced to better serve EPA's mission, while 
reducing unnecessary duplication and burdens that divert resources from infrastructure 
projects and ongoing maintenance and upgrades needed to ensure the safe reliable delivery of 
energy. A more efficient approach will help achieve EPA's environmental goals in a less 
burdensome manner, and it will allow our members to channel more resources to improve 
their systems and increase good-paying, career utility jobs that sustain middle class families in 
communities across the country. 

The American Gas Association, founded in 1918, represents more than 200 local energy 
companies that deliver clean natural gas throughout the United States. There are more than 73 
million residential, commercial and industrial natural gas customers in the U.S., of which 95 
percent — more than 69 million customers — receive their gas from AGA members. AGA is an 
advocate for natural gas utility companies and their customers and provides a broad range of 
programs and services for member natural gas pipelines, marketers, gatherers, international 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005460-00001 



natural gas companies and industry associates. Today, natural gas meets more than one-fourth 
of the United States' energy needs. 

I. Air Office - Revise 40 C.F.R. Part 98 SubpartW and Repeal Subpart NN 

A. Revise Subpart W to Reduce Unnecessary Burdens and Improve Accuracy: 

The Subpart W Reporting Program is providing value to AGA members as a source of 
credible data to demonstrate their progress in reducing emissions. However, several revisions 
are needed to improve the accuracy of the data and to eliminate unnecessary cost burdens that 
divert resources from more productive, job-creating energy projects. We believe a few simple 
changes can achieve this goal. 

1. Replace Unnecessary Leak Surveys with Emission Factors Based on Robust Data: 

Companies in the natural gas industry have conducted annual Subpart W leak surveys of 
equipment since 2011, and now have a robust set of data that could be used to establish 
updated emission factors. While natural gas operators will of course continue to perform leak 
detection and repair to ensure safety - as required pursuant to Department of Transportation 
(DOT) pipeline safety regulations and related state requirements - there is no value or benefit in 
performing duplicative surveys using different timing and criteria for Subpart W. The surveys 
were originally required because EPA lacked data on certain emission sources. The costly 
Subpart W surveys can now be replaced with a simple arithmetic calculation using emission 
factors based on data collected to date. An emission factor approach for calculating GHG 
emissions is common for many sources in Subpart W, as well as other industries that report 
under the Part 98 reporting program. 

This change should be made to eliminate, for example, Subpart W leak surveys under 40 
C.F.R. 98.233(q) for natural gas Transmission to Distribution pressure reduction stations (T-D 
transfer stations), Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) import-export terminals, peak-shaving LNG 
storage facilities, and transmission compression facilities. Instead of continuing these costly 
annual surveys, EPA should establish default emission factors based on the past six years of 


2 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005460-00002 



reporting data, with an option for companies to use their own company-specific emission 
factors based on their own past Subpart W leak survey data. 

Similarly, transmission compressor station and underground storage operators are 
required to conduct annual leak measurements under 40 C.F.R. 98.233(o) and (p) for 
reciprocating and centrifugal compressors, and under 40 C.F.R. 98.233(k) for scrubber dump 
valve leakage through condensate storage tank vents. These costly annual surveys should be 
replaced with default emission factors based on the past six years of reporting data, with an 
option for companies to use their own company-specific emission factors based on their own 
past Subpart W leak survey data. The leak survey requirement for other compressor station or 
storage facility components required under 40 C.F.R. 98.233(q) should also be replaced with 
emission factors. 

2. Improve Accuracy by Updating Emission Factors to Reflect Current Practices: 

To improve the accuracy of Subpart W data, EPA should update the default emission 
factors promptly as new, reliable scientific data becomes available. For example, Subpart W 
should use the same updated emission factors for natural gas distribution pipe as are already 
adopted for use for the annual EPA Inventory, based on the peer-reviewed study by Dr. Brian 
Lamb at Washington State University (WSU) published in the Journal of Environmental Science 
& Technology (March 2015). It is inaccurate and, frankly, misleading to continue 
overestimating natural gas emissions by using emission factors developed in a study conducted 
more than 20 years ago that evaluated a much smaller data set and reflected emissions from 
equipment and practices that have changed and improved dramatically since 1992. Additional 
robust data is expected to be available in 2018 from a series of studies co-funded by industry 
and Department of Energy (DOE). The Subpart W default emission factors should be updated 
as that new data becomes available. 

As to the emission factor for metering and regulating (M&R) equipment in particular, 
there is also no legitimate reason to continue applying an outdated and highly-inflated emission 
factor to this equipment. At least in the past, EPA appears to have been under the impression 
that M&Rs emit more if they are located below grade rather than above grade. Modern 


3 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005460-00003 



measurement data demonstrates this is not true. The same type of equipment is used in both 
above and below grade M&Rs and their emissions are far lower than the outdated default 
emission factor implies. EPA already allows up-to-date, company-specific emission factors for 
above grade M&Rs. The agency should allow the same updated emission factor for below 
grade M&Rs - based on the past six years of Subpart W emission surveys. 

3. Eliminate Subpart W Throughput Reporting: 

EPA should delete the recently added requirements in 40 C.F.R. Part 98, § 98.236(aa)(9) 
to report the quantity of natural gas received, delivered, stored, consumed and stolen. This 
provides no useful data for the purposes of Part 98 and duplicates natural gas throughput 
reporting under Subpart NN, which in turn already duplicates reporting to the DOE Energy 
Information Administration (EIA), as we note below. 


B. Eliminate Throughput Reporting under Subpart NN: 

EPA should review Subpart NN and consider, in a notice and comment rulemaking, 
whether to repeal it. At a minimum, Subpart NN reporting of natural gas deliveries to 
customers should be eliminated for natural gas distribution companies (LDCs), as this largely 
duplicates data companies are required to report to the DOE EIA and serves no useful purpose. 
The volume of natural gas delivered to customers in any year is mainly a function of annual 
weather fluctuations (i.e. colder or warmer winters), not commercial or industrial process 
changes. 


II. Water Office 

Review and Revise Waters of the U.S. Rule: 

The Administration has already initiated a review of the federal rule defining the scope 
of waters of the United States (WOTUS). We want to emphasize the need for a revised rule 
that provides a clear dividing line between water features that are or are not subject to federal 
jurisdiction - without the need for subjective, arbitrary and unduly burdensome case-by-case 

4 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005460-00004 



decisions that can delay natural gas utility and pipeline projects, impede job creation, impede 
economic development projects to be served by the pipeline, and increase costs. 


III. OEM - Federal Standards for Aboveground Storage of Hazardous Substances 

AGA is a member of the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG), and we support 
USWAG's request that the Office of Emergency Management (OEM), within EPA's Office of 
Land and Emergency Response (OLEM), should avoid duplicative, unnecessary or proscriptive 
requirements in the pending federal standards for the aboveground storage of hazardous 
substances. This rulemaking is of interest to AGA because it could adversely affect operations 
for natural gas utilities. We agree with USWAG that any such regulatory program should allow 
for performance-based controls, as a more prescriptive approach could harm job creation, 
impose unnecessary burdens, and/or impose costs that exceed benefits. 

IV. ORCR - Revise RCRA Generator Requirements for Remote Sites 

AGA also agrees with USWAG that EPA should revise a recent final rule regarding 
hazardous waste generator requirements that imposed many stringent changes without 
commensurate improvements in environmental safety. The rule originated in OLEM's Office of 
Resource Conservation and Recovery ( ORCR). 1 Of particular c oncern for natural gas utility 
operations is a provision in the preamble of the rule in which EPA "clarified" that states were not 
permitted to provide relief for the consolidation of hazardous wastes from remote or unstaffed 
sites. As USWAG notes, EPA provided limited relief for this type of consolidation in the final rule 
and then contended that state programs that had provided other types of commonsense relief 
for the same concerns were not permitted under the hazardous waste regulations?. This is highly 
disruptive for utility operations, particularly given that severalstates have already provided relief 
by allowing unknown wastes to be collected and consolidated from remote sitesand postponing 


1 81 Fed. Reg. 85732 (Nov. 28, 2016). 

2 Id. at 85776. 


5 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005460-00005 



hazardous waste determinations until the waste is received at a staffed facility, or by authorizing 
the direct transfer of hazardous waste to central locations. A similar problem arises in the 
preamble where EPA suggests that the relief the rule offers is the only available for episodic 
generation events, when in fact, some states have used their enforcement discretion to address 
abnormal hazardous waste generation patterns. We urge EPA to acknowledge and encourage 
the availability of state programs, such as the ones mentioned above, that achieve equivalent 
environmental protections in a far more practical and cost -effective manner. This would be 
consistent with the role of R CRA-delegated states as the primary regulator for facilities located 
within their jurisdictions. 

V. OPPT & ORCR - Revise and Simplify Federal PCB Regulation 

EPA should review, revise and simplify certain provisions in the federal regulations 
governing the use, remediation and disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The PCB 
regulations adopted in 1998 3 under 40 C.F.R. Part 761 were tailored to the agency's 
understanding of interstate pipelines, not natural gas local distribution systems, and are long 
overdue for modernization and simplification. 

Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 6(e) (15 U.S.C. § 2605(e)), the 
use of PCBs other than in a "totally enclosed manner" was banned after 1977 except as 
authorized by EPA regulatory action. EPA included a use authorization with respect to PCBs in 
pipeline systems because an EPA-commissioned human health risk assessment in 1984 
demonstrated the PCBs in enclosed pipelines do not pose an unacceptable risk to human 
health. PCBs were used in the last century as a fire retardant to improve safety in some 
products such as compressor lubricants and electric transformer fluid, but their manufacture 
and purchase ended in the last century. Their occasional presence and discovery makes it 
appropriate for EPA to maintain some form of "use authorization," but this can be 


3 The so-called "PCB Mega Rule" in 1998 was last significant amendment to the PCB regulations. See 63 Fed. Reg. 
35384 (June 29, 1998). 


6 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005460-00006 



accomplished in a less burdensome manner, especially for operators that did not originally 
introduce PCBs into their own systems, but rather received them from an upstream source. 

The use authorization rule is now a relic of a former time, and the rule makes even less 
sense now than it did originally. EPA staff have recognized this and have suggested they may 
consider a new approach - replacing the old rule with a very simple authorization for the 
presence of PCBs in natural gas utility and pipeline systems, provided the operator follows 
reasonable requirements for managing and disposing of PCBs when they are discovered. 

The use authorization rule for natural gas systems, administered by the Office of 
Pollution Prevention and Toxics ("OPPT") within EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution 
Prevention ("OCSPP") could be boiled down to a few words, eliminating significant and 
completely unnecessary cost burdens and complexity, as we explain below. The disposal and 
remediation rules in Part 761 are generally more risk-based and functional, but they too could 
be improved to eliminate some provisions that impose severe and unnecessary costs. Because 
the use authorization and disposal rules are interrelated but administered by two different 
offices at EPA, their revision should be coordinated, in fact, pursuant to Executive Order 13781 
(March 13, 2017) establishing a comprehensive plan for reorganizing the Executive Branch, it 
would make sense to reduce confusion and duplication by consolidating the two functions and 
moving any remaining use authorization issues into one PCB use, remediation and disposal 
group within the Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (ORCR) under the Office of 
Land and Emergency Management (OLEM). 


A. Revise and Simplify PCB Use Authorization 

Having a simple yet effective PCB use authorization is important to affected natural gas 
companies as they continue to rid their systems of PCBs over time. The existing use 
authorization rules governing PCBs in natural gas systems, however, are replete with vague, 
confusing, cumbersome, burdensome and irrational provisions, particularly for local natural gas 
distribution utilities. The confusion stems in part from trying to create natural gas regulations 
on a foundation of electrical equipment regulations developed 40 years ago, when in fact, the 

7 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005460-00007 



use of PCBs in electric and gas systems was completely different. The confusion in the 1998 
natural gas regulations also stems from the fact that EPA developed the regulations based on 
the agency's partial understanding of the interstate natural gas transmission pipelines where 
PCBs were discovered by EPA, and a complete misunderstanding about how local distribution 
systems operate. For example, the existing rule was drafted based on an incorrect assumption 
that both transmission and distribution systems are comprised of straight, level pipelines that 
flow in only one direction for many miles. Another misunderstanding that has caused serious 
confusion and excessive costs relates to the "source" of legacy PCBs in systems. A local 
distribution company that did not introduce PCBs into its own system, but rather received PCBs 
from an upstream interstate pipeline, does not have a source of PCBs in its system, yet it can 
become subject to the unduly burdensome use authorization requirements to eliminate 
"sources" that do not exist under such circumstances. These and other problems related to the 
use authorization rule have been compounded as local distribution systems have modernized 
and grown since 1998. 


We encourage EPA to repeal the current use authorization regulations in 761.30 and 
replace them with a simple statement that liquid and non-liquid PCBs and PCBs in porous 
surfaces are authorized for use at any concentration in electric utility, natural gas distribution 
utility, storage and pipeline systems and operations, provided the operator complies with 
applicable requirements for PCB remediation, storage and disposal under Sections 761.60, 
761.60, 761.61, 761.65, and 761.120 as PCBs are removed and eliminated from pipeline 
systems over time. We also urge EPA (1) to eliminate any reference to "potential sources," 4 
(2) clearly eliminate any flawed concept that devices designed to remove liquids (and PCBs if 
present) from natural gas systems somehow reintroduce them, and (3) eliminate extensive, 
unnecessary procedures for "characterizing" natural gas systems to look for PCB deposits today 
-- long after they were first introduced more than 50 years ago. Resources should instead be 
focused on responding appropriately and reasonably when any remaining PCBs are found. 


4 See 40 C.F.R. § 761.30(i)(l)(iii)(A). 


8 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005460-00008 



Requirements for such response and disposal should be based on standard best practices that 
are self-implementing and clearly described in the rule, to eliminate the need for any EPA 
involvement in day-to-day operations. 

B. Revise Certain PCB Analysis, Storage and Disposal Regulations 

1. Change PCB Rules to Facilitate Gas & Electric Utility Operations 

AGA agrees with USWAG that EPA should: (1) allow disposal of PCB remediation wastes 
at "as-found" levels <50 ppm in non-TSCA landfills; (2) modify the PCB analytical rules at 40 

C. F.R. § 761.272 to expressly authorize the use of the automated soxhlet extraction procedure 
(Method 3541) for the chemical extraction of PCBs from individual and composite samples; and 
(3) amend 40 C.F.R. § 76165 to allow satellite accumulation of PCBs. 

2. Change Storage and Disposal Rules to Facilitate Natural Gas Utility Operations 

a. Reduce Costs by Allowing Rational Method to Identify Areas Not Subject to 
PCB Concerns and Disposal Restrictions 

EPA's PCB disposal rules under Section 761.60 describe how to characterize and manage 
natural gas distribution and transmission pipelines from PCB-impacted systems when no longer 
fit for service, including restrictions on how pipe can be abandoned in place or disposed of, 
depending on PCB levels. 5 Pipe removal and replacement are becoming more common in 
response to DOT pipeline safety regulations, so the cost of complying with the PCB regulations 
for natural gas systems continues to rise while PCB levels continue to decline. 

Natural gas companies strive to rid their systems of liquids in general and PCBs in 
particular to eliminate these added costs. However, it is not clear under the existing rules how 
an operator can "delist" a system or portion thereof from the costly and onerous pre-requisites 
for abandoning pipe in place. Nor are the rules clear regarding how and where to send pipe for 
disposal or recycling once PCBs are no longer found in the system or a portion thereof above 
the regulatory threshold. It is wasteful and very costly to continue applying restrictions 
designed for systems with PCBs in liquids to dry pipe that has salvage value and no longer poses 
a risk. Testing each section of pipe as it is taken out of service in such systems is also costly and 


5 See 40 C.F.R. § 761.60(b)(5). 


9 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005460-00009 



wasteful. We would welcome the opportunity to work with EPA to develop a rational method 
for "delisting" systems or portions of systems that actually results in some incremental 
environmental benefit, so that resources can be focused on projects that improve safe and 
reliable energy delivery, create good paying utility jobs, and facilitate economic development. 

b. Allow PCB Bulk Product Waste Storage or PCB Bulk Remediation Waste for 

Storage Up to 180 Days -- in a Roll-Off or Similar Container -- at Either the Site of 

Generation or Other Company-Owned Site 

Pipe wrap and cathodic protection are two effective methods that have been used over 
the years for protecting metal pipe from corrosion. Coal tar pipe wrap was often used on steel 
and cast iron pipe for gas utility systems in the first half of last century. Sometimes oil 
containing PCBs was applied to the wrap to improve its flexibility. Gas utilities have been 
removing and replacing cast iron pipe over recent years as they modernize their systems, and 
they sometimes encounter sections of coal tar pipe wrap that contain PCBs at concentrations of 
> 50 ppm. In such cases, utilities need a cost-effective method for managing this waste. 

AGA agrees with USWAG that PCB-containing Coal Tar Wrap (CTW) material meets the 
definition of "PCB bulk product waste" under 40 C.F.R. § 761. 3. The existing PCB storage 

regulations at 40 C.F.R. § 761.65(c)(9) allow temporary storage of PCB bulk product wasteor PCB 
bulk remediation wastes at the site of generation for up to 180 days , but only in a "pile" that 
meets several restrictive performance standards. A better, simpler and more cost -effective 
option in many circumstances would be to use a roll -off or similar container. AGA agrees with 
USWAG that the rule should be amended to allow the use of a roll-off or similar container. 

Further, since the site of generation could be in a city street or utility right -of-way, it is 
often not feasible orthe best environmental optionto store bulk PCB remediation wastes or bulk 
PCB product wastes there. It is often more practical an d environmentally sound to bring such 
bulk wastes back to a utility service center or other company -owned central site. The existing 
regulations at 40 C.F.R. § 761.65(c)(1) allow operators to move PCB bulk product waste or PCB 
remediation waste from the site of generation back to a company -owned site for temporary 
storage before shipment off -site to a qualifying TSCA disposal facility - but such temporary 
storage at a company-owned central site (other than the site of generation) is limited to only 30 

10 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005460-00010 



days. This short time period often does not allow adequate time for cost-effective storage prior 
to off-site shipment. For the reasons explained in USWAG's comments in this docket, extending 
this time period would not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. 
EPA should amend its storage for disposal regulations at 40 C.F.R. §761.65 to expressly authorize 
operators to move PCB remediation wastes and PCB bulk product waste s such as CTW or pipe 
covered with CTW from remote sites to a central company-owned location for storage up to 180 
days. 


AGA appreciates the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please contact me. 


Respectfully Submitted, 



Pamela Lacey 

Chief Regulatory Counsel 

American Gas Association 

400 N. Capitol St., NW 

Washington, DC 20001 

202.824.7340 

placey@aRa.org 


11 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005460-00011 



NGVAMERICA 

Natural Gas Vehicles for America 


400 North Capitol Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20001 

ngvamerica.org 


Jeffrey Clarke 
Director of Regulatory 
Affairs and General Counsel 

jclarke@ngvamerica.org 

202.824.7364 office 
202.824.7087 fax 


May 15, 2017 

Ms. Samantha Davis 

Senior Counsel and Associate Administrator for Policy 
Regulatory Reform Officer for Executive Order 13777 
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 
Washington, DC 20460 

Re: Identification of Regulations for Repeal, Modification or Replacement Under Executive Order 

13777, 82 Fed. Reg. 17793 (April 13, 2017) (EPA Request for Comment) - 
Docket No. EPA-HQ-OA-2017-0190 

Dear Ms. Davis: 

NGVAmerica appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency's regulatory review effort announced on April 13, 2017. 

NGVAmerica is a national trade association dedicated to creating a profitable, sustainable and growing 
market for compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, and renewable natural gas powered vehicles. 
NGVAmerica represents more than 200 companies, including vehicle manufacturers; natural gas 
vehicle component manufacturers; natural gas distribution, transmission, and production companies; 
natural gas development organizations; non-profit advocacy organizations; state and local government 
agencies; and fleet operators. 

The United States is the world's largest producer of clean-burning natural gas. The abundance of this 
domestic resource means that it is a clean, low-cost, stable energy source that can secure America's 
energy needs for decades to come. Using more domestic natural gas results in expanded job 
opportunities for workers that produce this fuel and it also provides cost-savings for the consumers 
and businesses that consume this fuel. It also adds much needed revenue to the state budgets in areas 
of the country where natural gas is produced. 

To expand the opportunities for using this domestic fuel here in the U.S., more should be done to 
ensure that the right types of incentives and common sense regulations govern its use in the 
transportation sector. Using compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), and renewable 
natural gas (RNG) in transportation can displace demand for imported energy and deliver the lowest 
emissions among all fuels. 


Advocating the increasing use of NGVs where they benefit most, 

For the economy. For the environment. For health. For security. For America. 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005461-00001 




NGVAmerica offers the following comments relating to the regulation of natural gas vehicles. The 
requested regulatory and policy changes are intended to remove unnecessary impediments to the 
increased use of natural gas vehicles and domestic natural gas resources and, if adopted, will promote 
job creation, clean air, reduced emissions of greenhouse gases, and improved energy security. 


I. Amend the Driving Range Requirements for NGVs to provide fair treatment relative to 
other technologies, and to provide additional incentive for manufacturers to produce 
natural gas vehicles 

EPA should remove the requirements in 40 CFR § 600.510-12, Calculation of average fuel economy and 
average carbon-related exhaust emissions, part (c)(2)(vii)(B) for fuel economy and (j)(2)(vii)(B) for 
emissions, that require NGVs to have a driving range on natural gas that is two times the driving range 
on gasoline or diesel fuel. This requirement is wholly impractical as it would require automakers to 
install significantly larger and more expensive natural gas fuel systems on dual-fuel vehicles, or 
alternatively require automobile manufacturers to reduce the size of gasoline fuel systems installed on 
dual-fuel NGVs, to access the utility factors available to other vehicles. This latter requirement would 
impose significant costs as it would require the design and manufacturer of smaller gasoline tanks and 
changes in the assembly production of base gasoline vehicles to fit vehicles with unique gasoline tanks. 

NGVAmerica previously petitioned EPA to remove this requirement but to date EPA has not acted on 
this petition. We would again urge EPA to revisit this issue and amend its regulations accordingly by 
removing this burdensome and unnecessary requirement. Amending the rules as requested would 
level the playing field with other technologies and increase the incentive for manufacturers to offer 
more light duty NGVs. It also could be expected to encourage manufacturers to begin to commercial 
new low-pressure and absorbed natural gas systems. 

NGVAmerica wishes to indicate its support for separate comments submitted by VNG.CO addressing 
this same issue, and would appreciate an opportunity to provide additional information in support of 
this request. 


II. Amend the marine engine certification requirements for dual-fuel natural gas engines so 
that compliance is based on the intended use of these engines and recognizes that when 
operating on natural gas/diesel mixtures these engines comply with and exceed the Tier 
III requirements. 40 CFR Part 1042 - Control of Emissions from New and In-Use Marine 
Compression-Ignition Engines and Vessels. 

Natural gas, including liquefied natural gas, holds significant potential to displace petroleum as marine 
fuel and reduce emissions of harmful pollutants. Today, there are over 200 LNG ships in operation and 
on order. About 15 percent of new orders for these ships will operate in the US waters. There is 
growing interest in using LNG because it is a virtually sulfur free fuel and offers a significant reduction 
in particulates and NOx emissions compared to conventional marine fuels. LNG also provides a 
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. In addition to the environmental benefits, encouraging the use 


Advocating the increasing use of NGVs where they benefit most, 

For the economy. For the environment. For health. For security, for America. 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005461-00002 



of more LNG as a fuel for marine vessels will lead to new economic development as bunkering 
facilities, ships and other fueling infrastructure are built to support this market. 

In the US, Tier III NOx requirements are in effect for all category 3 new built vessels (range in size from 
2,500 to 70,000 kW (3,000 to 100,000 hp) - large engines that propel ocean-going vessels such as 
container ships, oil tankers, bulk carriers, and cruise ships). The more demanding NOx emission levels 
required by the Tier III regulation is readily met by ships when they operate on LNG. In fact, using LNG 
results in NOx emissions that are well below required levels. To use LNG, most marine vessels rely on 
dual-fuel operation, which here refers to operation on a mixture of LNG and diesel fuel in a diesel cycle 
or compression-ignition engine. 

The problem today is that the Tier III emission regulations do not distinguish between fuel types, or 
provide any allowance for dual-fuel engines that operate on mixture of LNG and diesel fuel. The 
regulations therefore require that these vessels meet the NOx emission levels on both fuels including 
when operating on 100 percent diesel fuel even though that is not how the dual-fuel engines are 
intended to operate. The result is that manufacturers must equip their dual-fuel natural gas/diesel 
engines with expensive after-treatment equipment (Selective Catalyst Reduction - SCR - Technology) 
that is not necessary to achieve the required emission levels. Installing SCR systems on these vessels 
adds an additional cost of 1 - 2 million dollars per ship, even for ships utilizing diesel only for ignition 
purposes and whose fuel use is primarily LNG. 

While the number of LNG powered vessels is growing, economies of scale are not yet reached, and the 
expertise and knowledge in building these ships is still fledgling, especially in the US/Jones Act vessels. 
The fact that ship builders must install costly SCR systems can and does discourage the development of 
the market for LNG ships and the use of natural gas in the marine market. 

NGVAmerica requests that EPA amend it rules to allow a waiver for dual-fuel engines that operate the 
majority of the time on LNG and that have demonstrated through testing that they meet the Tier III 
NOx regulation when operating as intended (e.g., 70%NG/30% diesel or 90%NG/10% diesel). Providing 
this waiver will stimulate growth and jobs in shipbuilding in the US and encourage a faster paced 
adoption of cleaner-burning natural gas in this market. 


III. Amend the DERA Program to remove scrappage requirement for replacement vehicles 
that exceed current federal standards by 50% or more for NOx emissions 

This issue concerns EPA guidance for the Diesel Emission Reduction Act (DERA) Program. Current 
guidance provides additional funding (i.e. 35% instead of 25%) for the cost of new replacement 
vehicles that have been certified to optional low-NOx standards. Thus, the program provides a larger 
incentive for cleaner engines. NGVAmerica strongly supports this provision as it currently stands but 
also urges EPA to expand the incentive for low-NOx engines by providing a larger incentive, or by 
removing the scrappage requirement. 


Advocating the increasing use of NGVs where they benefit most, 

For the economy. For the environment. For health. For security, for America. 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005461-00003 



The DERA program seeks to ensure emission reductions by removing older, dirtier equipment from 
operation. The removal of more polluting equipment is ensured by requiring scrappage of vehicles and 
engines. Assuming equipment is retired earlier than it otherwise would be the case, this essentially 
locks in excess emission reductions. Scrappage however comes at a cost for businesses that lose the 
opportunity to sell their equipment and receive compensation for the remaining value. For new diesel 
vehicles, it can be argued that providing 25 percent incentive for the cost of new replacement vehicle 
is more than sufficient to offset the economic loss associated with scrappage, and still provide an 
incentive to encourage the purchase of new, cleaner vehicles. 

For natural gas vehicles, however, the DERA incentive of 25 percent or even 35 percent for the cost of 
a new vehicle is not sufficient to cover the economic loss associated with scrappage and the added 
costs associated with new natural gas trucks, which, like other advanced technology vehicles, cost 
more than conventionally fueled diesel vehicles. To remedy this situation, we would urge EPA to 
consider providing an even larger incentive for natural gas low-NOx vehicles. This could include 
providing 50 percent of the purchase for low-NOx alternative fuel trucks, or removing the scrappage 
requirement for low-NOx trucks. Such a policy would align with the DERA intent by delivering 
additional emission reductions because low-NOx engines are 50 - 90 percent cleaner than required. 


IV. Amend the testing and sampling requirements for cellulosic fuel produced in anaerobic 
digesters to be less burdensome and encourage increased production of qualifying 
cellulosic fuel 

Renewable natural gas produced from a variety of feedstocks has proved to be a huge success story, 
and today accounts for a significant portion of natural gas used to fuel natural gas vehicles. This clean¬ 
burning, low-carbon fuel accounts for more than 20 percent of all on-road natural gas demand and is 
expected to account for more than 40 percent of on-road demand by 2018. The success of renewable 
natural gas is due in no small part to the inclusion of various incentives and regulatory programs that 
encourage the production of this fuel including the U.S. EPA's Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program. 

To expand the opportunity for renewable natural gas and remove burden on industry, NGVAmerica 
requests that EPA address the sampling and testing requirements required for anaerobic digesters (AD) 
that process crop waste to produce cellulosic fuel. AD producers have indicated that the testing 
requirements to demonstrate that 75 percent of the feedstock used in these facilities is cellulosic 
based are too burdensome and therefore discourage the production of more cellulosic qualifying fuel. 
Specifically, we request a change in the testing requirements found in 40 CFR 80.1426 so that instead 
of requiring the testing of every truck load that is delivered to an AD facility, that the testing is instead 
done quarterly and on random samples. 


Advocating the increasing use of NGVs where they benefit most, 

For the economy. For the environment. For health. For security, for America. 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005461-00004 



Conclusion 


NGVAmerica appreciates the opportunity to provides these comments and would welcome the 
opportunity to discuss these issues further with EPA as it moves forward with its regulatory review. In 
addition to the comments offered here, NGVAmerica would like to offer its support for the comments 
submitted in the docket by VNG.CO, which address several other issues related to the certification of 
light duty vehicles that are not included in our submission but nevertheless we strongly support. We 
believe that the changes requested will provide more fair treatment for NGVs and level of the playing 
field with other transportation technologies, and thereby increase the use of domestic natural gas as a 
transportation fuel. 

Sincerely, 


t 


Advocating the increasing use of NGVs where they benefit most, 

For the economy. For the environment. For health. For security, for America. 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005461-00005 



From: Kime, Robin 

Location: Trump Hotel Lobby 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Coffee with Lesley (2:15 p.m.) 

Start Date/Time: Thur 11/2/2017 6:15:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Thur 11/2/2017 6:45:00 PM 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005463-00001 



From: Kime, Robin 

Location: 3500 WJCN 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Meeting with John Waike 

Start Date/Time: Mon 12/11/2017 4:30:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Mon 12/11/2017 5:00:00 PM 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your 
right as you exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 10 minutes prior to 
the meeting with photo IDs to clear Security. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all 
other matters call Robin Kime (202)564-6587. 


Contact: Waike, John <jwalke@nrdc.org> 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005464-00001 



To: Dravis, Samantha[dravis.samantha@epa.gov] 

From: ECOS 

Sent: Wed 9/20/2017 3:18:33 PM 

Subject: Speakers Announced for ECOS' Webinar on Cooperative Federalism 2.0: A Deeper Look into 
a Rebooted EPA-State Relationship 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005467-00001 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005467-00002 



From: Microsoft Outlook 

Location: DCRoomARN3500/OPEI 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Meeting Forward Notification: Regulatory Priorities Meeting - Call: 1-855-564-1700; Ext: 

1104438; Participant Code: 234567 

Start Date/Time: Wed 9/27/2017 2:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Wed 9/27/2017 2:45:00 PM 


Your meeting was forwarded 

inae, Carolyn has forwarded your meeting request to additional recipients. 


Meeting 


Regulatory Priorities Meeting - Call: 1-855-564-1700; Ext: 1104438; Participant Code: 234567 


Meeting Time 

Wednesday, September 27, 2017 10:00 AM-10:45 AM. 


Recipients 

Greenwalt. Sarah 
Gunasekara. Mandv 
Brown. Bvron 
Baptist, Erik 
Beck. Nancv 
Forsaren, Lee 
Davis. Patrick 
Fotouhi. David 
Schwab. Justin 
Darwin. Veronica 
Jackson. Rvan 
Bolen. Brittany 
Rees. Sarah 
Inae. Carolyn 
Kime, Robin 
Burlev. Veronica 
Dominguez. Alexander 
Patrick. Monique 
Penman. Crystal 
Willis. S h arnett 
Bailev. Ethel 
Milhouse. Gloria 
DCRoomARN3500/QPEI 
Bowman. Liz 
Lousbera. Macara 


times listed are in 


owing time zone: 


(UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada) 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005469-00001 



Sent by Microsoft Exchange Server 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005469-00002 



To: Dravis, Samantha[dravis.samantha@epa.gov] 

From: Kevin Kukay 

Sent: Wed 9/20/2017 3:59:02 AM 

Subject: Help Protect Refiners Jobs In Reference to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ- OAR-2017-0091 
Samantha Dravis, 

The time is now to help prevent a massive loss of good-paying American jobs. The EPA 
currently implements the Renewable Fuel Standard in a way that makes all U.S. refiners 
responsible for ensuring that certain levels of renewable fuels are blended into gasoline, even if 
they do not have capabilities to do such blending. 

This nonsensical set-up allows large integrated oil companies that blend more fuel than they 
refine and big convenience store gasoline chains (who do much of the blending) to collect 
valuable credits for the renewable fuel they blend into the pure gasoline they get from refineries. 
Independent refiners, who do little or no blending themselves, then end up purchasing those 
credits in order to demonstrate compliance with a process they have little control over. Small and 
independent refiners are at risk of going offline due to this backwards regulation, with 75,000- 
150,000 U.S. workers potentially impacted. 

Please, help save our jobs and make this right. Please move the point of obligation for the RFS 
(Docket ID No. EPA—HQ— OAR—2017—0091) in a way that fixes this inequity. 

Thank you. 

Kevin Kukay 
PO Box 312 
Elmore, OH 43416 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005474-00001 



To: Dravis, Samantha[dravis.samantha@epa.gov] 

From: Kim Kruse 

Sent: Wed 9/20/2017 12:56:07 AM 

Subject: Help Protect Refiners Jobs In Reference to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ- OAR-2017-0091 
Samantha Dravis, 

The time is now to help prevent a massive loss of good-paying American jobs. The EPA 
currently implements the Renewable Fuel Standard in a way that makes all U.S. refiners 
responsible for ensuring that certain levels of renewable fuels are blended into gasoline, even if 
they do not have capabilities to do such blending. 

This nonsensical set-up allows large integrated oil companies that blend more fuel than they 
refine and big convenience store gasoline chains (who do much of the blending) to collect 
valuable credits for the renewable fuel they blend into the pure gasoline they get from refineries. 
Independent refiners, who do little or no blending themselves, then end up purchasing those 
credits in order to demonstrate compliance with a process they have little control over. Small and 
independent refiners are at risk of going offline due to this backwards regulation, with 75,000- 
150,000 U.S. workers potentially impacted. 

Please, help save our jobs and make this right. Please move the point of obligation for the RFS 
(Docket ID No. EPA—HQ— OAR—2017—0091) in a way that fixes this inequity. 

Thank you. 

Kim Kruse 

4462 County Road 44 
Woodville, OH 43469 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005475-00001 



To: Clark, Katherine[Clark.Katherine@epa.gov]; 

HQ_Facilities_Updates[HQ_Facilities_Updates@epa.gov]; Hq Parking 
Participants[hqparkingparticipants@usepa.onmicrosoft.com] 

Cc: Davis, Michael D.[Davis.Michaeld@epa.gov]; Layne, Heather[Layne.Heather@epa.gov]; Allen, 

CatherineBfAllen.CatherineB@epa.gov] 

From: Barton, Kathryn 

Sent: Fri 9/8/2017 12:56:59 PM 

Subject: RE: New parking requirements 

epaoia notificationmemo 08-01-16 epa-parkinq.pdf 


I wasn’t able to find a full audit on OIG’s website; however, in August 2016, a Project 
Notification memorandum was sent to OARM regarding the parking subsidy (attached). I’ve 
copied the OIG points of contact as there may be a completed report they can direct us to. 


htt ps://www.epa.gov/office-iiispector-general/notificatioii-review-epas-parking-siibsidv-program 


Kate Barton 


From: Clark, Katherine 

Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2017 9:31 AM 

To: HQ_Facilities_Updates <HQ_Facilities_Updates@epa.gov>; Hq Parking Participants 
<hqparkingparticipants@usepa.onmicrosoft.com> 

Subject: RE: New parking requirements 


Would you please send a copy of the OIG’s audit findings to the Hq Parking Participants? 


Thank you. 


Katherine Clark 


From: HQ Facilities Updates 

Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2017 9:16 AM 

To: Hq Parking Participants < hqparkingparticipants@usepa.onmicrosoft.com > 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005477-00001 


Subject: New parking requirements 


The agency’s parking programs were recently audited by the Office of Inspector 
General. Based on the findings of the audit and recent agency budget cuts, the EPA will 
no longer offer reduced-rate parking to employees. Therefore, effective October 1, 

2017 , the parking rate will increase to $293.45 for all parking categories . This includes 
disability; unusual hours, van/carpools and motorcycle parking. 

New parking requirements will also go into effect on October 1, 2017 . HQ employees 
participating in the parking program can expect the following changes: 

• All non-EPA (federal and non-federal) van/carpool members will be required to 
submit a memorandum, with the parking application, from their respective 
agency/company certifying that the employee does not receive transit subsidy 
benefits to commute to/from work. If the memorandum is not attached to the 
parking application, it will be denied. 

• HQ executives will be considered a part of the “unusual hours” category to be 
consistent with the Code of Federal regulations, and that will be defined in the 
revised parking application. 

• All participating employees will be required to recertify using revised EPA Form 

5160-1 by October 1,2017 . 

• Employees who choose to continue participating in the HQ parking program should 
make month payments using https://pav.aov/public/home . 

• Employees who choose to discontinue participating in the HQ parking program 
must complete the parking withdrawal form and submit to 

headquartersparkina@epa.gov . 

• Employees who choose to discontinue participating in the HQ parking program that 
have set up automatic payments will need to cancel those payments with Pay.gov. 

• Employees who choose to discontinue participating in the HQ parking program 
may work directly with Cristal Shimamura, RRB Parking Manager, to secure 
parking. Ms. Shimamura may be reached at 202-312-1317. The RRB offers 
discounted rates to federal employees. The rate for vehicles is $319.00 and 
$159.00 for motorcycles. 

If you have any questions regarding the upcoming changes to the headquarters parking 
program, please contact the agency’s HQ Parking Office at 202-564-2085. 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005477-00002 



From: Microsoft Outlook 

Location: Aim Room 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: FW: Chief of Staff Meeting 

Start Date/Time: Mon 9/18/2017 12:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Mon 9/18/2017 1:00:00 PM 

Your meeting was found to be out of date and has been automatically updated. 

Updated ineetirtcj details: 

The meeting was canceled. 


Serif 


Server 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005482-00001 



To: Dravis, Samantha[dravis.samantha@epa.gov] 

From: Foxit Software Incorporated 

Sent: Wed 11/15/2017 3:10:28 AM 

Subject: [SPAM] Creating accessible PDF documents 



View in browser 



Creating accessible PDF documents 

Most governments have laws that require electronic information that’s developed or purchased 
to be accessible by vision- and hearing-impaired people. Many businesses and private 

organizations have adopted these policies too. 

So how do you ensure you re creating an accessible PDF? Follow these best practices. 




https://marketing.foxitsoftware.com/acton/ct/31973/s-046c-171 1/Bct/1-Q0d9/1- 
Q0rt9:4e8930/etl 1/1 ?si'tfoTV2:pf(i7qisF.f 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005484-00001 
















Our mailing address is: Foxis. Software 41841 Albrae Street. Fremont. CA S4S38. USA 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005484-00002 










To: Dravis, Samantha[dravis.samantha@epa.gov] 

From: Matthew Pierscher 

Sent: Tue 9/19/2017 6:57:21 PM 

Subject: Help Protect Refiners Jobs In Reference to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ- OAR-2017-0091 
Samantha Dravis, 

The time is now to help prevent a massive loss of good-paying American jobs. The EPA 
currently implements the Renewable Fuel Standard in a way that makes all U.S. refiners 
responsible for ensuring that certain levels of renewable fuels are blended into gasoline, even if 
they do not have capabilities to do such blending. 

This nonsensical set-up allows large integrated oil companies that blend more fuel than they 
refine and big convenience store gasoline chains (who do much of the blending) to collect 
valuable credits for the renewable fuel they blend into the pure gasoline they get from refineries. 
Independent refiners, who do little or no blending themselves, then end up purchasing those 
credits in order to demonstrate compliance with a process they have little control over. Small and 
independent refiners are at risk of going offline due to this backwards regulation, with 75,000- 
150,000 U.S. workers potentially impacted. 

Please, help save our jobs and make this right. Please move the point of obligation for the RFS 
(Docket ID No. EPA—HQ— OAR—2017—0091) in a way that fixes this inequity. 

Thank you. 

Matthew Pierscher 
7286 jackman rd 
Ida, MI 48140 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005485-00001 



To: Hq Parking Participants[hqparkingparticipants@usepa.onmicrosoft.com] 

From: Poke-Williams, Shela 

Sent: Tue 9/12/2017 8:33:12 PM 

Subject: memo for parking 


Hello to whom it may concerns, wouldn’t the transit office have the memo 
already? Or is this something we need from our supervisor? Thanks. 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005487-00001 



From: Susan Alfonso 

Location: DCRoomARN3500/OPEI 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Accepted: Meeting with the Specialty Equipment Market Association 
Start Date/Time: Fri 9/29/2017 2:30:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Fri 9/29/2017 3:00:00 PM 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005490-00001 



From: Microsoft Outlook 

Location: Houston Tx. 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Meeting Forward Notification: Hold for Travel Prep and Departure 
Start Date/Time: Thur 9/14/2017 6:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Thur 9/14/2017 10:30:00 PM 

Your meeting was forwarded 

Inae, Carolyn has forwarded your meeting request to additional recipients. 

Meeting 

Hold for Travel Prep and Departure 


Meeting Time 

Thursday, September 14, 2017 2:00 PM-6:30 PM. 

Recipients 

Dravis. Samantha 


All times listed are in the following time zone: (UTC-05:00) Ea 


Time (US & Canada) 




ige Server 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005494-00001 



To: Dravis, Samantha[dravis.samantha@epa.gov] 

From: Brad Wignall 

Sent: Tue 9/19/2017 2:53:37 PM 

Subject: Help Protect Refiners Jobs In Reference to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ- OAR-2017-0091 
Samantha Dravis, 

The time is now to help prevent a massive loss of good-paying American jobs. The EPA 
currently implements the Renewable Fuel Standard in a way that makes all U.S. refiners 
responsible for ensuring that certain levels of renewable fuels are blended into gasoline, even if 
they do not have capabilities to do such blending. 

This nonsensical set-up allows large integrated oil companies that blend more fuel than they 
refine and big convenience store gasoline chains (who do much of the blending) to collect 
valuable credits for the renewable fuel they blend into the pure gasoline they get from refineries. 
Independent refiners, who do little or no blending themselves, then end up purchasing those 
credits in order to demonstrate compliance with a process they have little control over. Small and 
independent refiners are at risk of going offline due to this backwards regulation, with 75,000- 
150,000 U.S. workers potentially impacted. 

Please, help save our jobs and make this right. Please move the point of obligation for the RFS 
(Docket ID No. EPA—HQ— OAR—2017—0091) in a way that fixes this inequity. 

Thank you. 

Brad Wignall 

7216 Winding Brook Road 
Perrysburg, OH 43551 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005495-00001 



From: Paul Balserak 

Location: To be reserved: Del Friscos 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Accepted: Lunch with Paul B. 

Start Date/Time: Tue 10/3/2017 4:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Tue 10/3/2017 5:00:00 PM 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005496-00001 



To: Dravis, Samantha[dravis.samantha@epa.gov] 

From: Brice Raatz 

Sent: Tue 9/19/2017 1:59:00 PM 

Subject: Help Protect Refiners Jobs In Reference to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ- OAR-2017-0091 
Samantha Dravis, 

The time is now to help prevent a massive loss of good-paying American jobs. The EPA 
currently implements the Renewable Fuel Standard in a way that makes all U.S. refiners 
responsible for ensuring that certain levels of renewable fuels are blended into gasoline, even if 
they do not have capabilities to do such blending. 

This nonsensical set-up allows large integrated oil companies that blend more fuel than they 
refine and big convenience store gasoline chains (who do much of the blending) to collect 
valuable credits for the renewable fuel they blend into the pure gasoline they get from refineries. 
Independent refiners, who do little or no blending themselves, then end up purchasing those 
credits in order to demonstrate compliance with a process they have little control over. Small and 
independent refiners are at risk of going offline due to this backwards regulation, with 75,000- 
150,000 U.S. workers potentially impacted. 

Please, help save our jobs and make this right. Please move the point of obligation for the RFS 
(Docket ID No. EPA—HQ— OAR—2017—0091) in a way that fixes this inequity. 

Thank you. 

Brice Raatz 
2957 County Road L 
Edon, OH 43518 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005498-00001 



From: Larry Schafer 

Location: 1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20004, USA 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Invitation: Biodiesel Meeting w EPA (Mandy Gunasekara, Samantha Dravi... @ Wed Sep 20, 
2017 1pm - 2pm (EDT) (dravis.samantha@epa.gov) 

Start Date/Time: Wed 9/20/2017 5:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Wed 9/20/2017 6:00:00 PM 

invite.ics 


more details » 




Biodiesel Meeting w EPA (Mandy Gunasekara, Samantha Dravis, Gene 

Gebolys, others) 




When 

Wed Sep 20, 2017 1pm - 2pm Eastern Time 




Where 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20004, USA (map) 

Video ca 

7 https://plus.qooqle.com/hanqouts/ /dcdiamondqroup.com/lschafer 

Calendar 

dravis.samantha@epa.gov 




Who 

• Larry Schafer - organizer 








rrerenrreerrM'rrerereMereeerrrrrrerww 

rrMeereereererr 

• mferaci@playmakerstrategies.com 



'■hvhi'h 


• anne steckel 



eerrMrerMhMhhW'-h : <e e v 


• dravis.samantha@epa.gov 





• dominguez.alexander@epa.gov 



rrrererrrnrerr rerre^rrrrreMrrrreereerr 


* ggebolys@worldenergy.net 


••7 

wwMrerarerrwrrrhrrrrrerrrrrrenwrrnMe 

Going? Y 

es » Maybe - No more options » 




f: : T : lrwifaffon from Gooale Calendar 




You are receiving this courtesy email at the accountdravis.samantha@epa.gov because you are an attendee of this event. 

To stop receiving future updates for this event, decline this event. Alternatively you can sign up for a Google account at 

https://www.google.com/calendar/ and control your notification settings for your entire calendar. 

Forwardina this invitation could allow anv recipient to modify vour RSVP response. Learn More. 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005500-00001 
































































































Biodiesel Meeting w EPA (Mandy Gunasekara, Samantha 
Dravis, Gene Gebolys, others) 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20004, USA 

20170920T170000Z 

CONFIRMED 

PRODID 

-//Google lnc//Google Calendar 70.9054//EN 

Version 

2.0 

CALSCALE 

GREGORIAN 

METHOD 

REQUEST 

Start Date/Time 

20170920T170000Z 

End Date/Time 

20170920T180000Z 

DTSTAMP 

20170912T193724Z 

ORGANIZER ( CN=Larry Schafer) 

mailto:lschafer@dcdiamondgroup.com 

UID 

7C2F5158-EFE1 -4494-915E-2B429B1D6512 


Attendee 


maiito:aunasekara.mandv@epa .qov 


Role 

REQ-PARTICIPANT 


RSVP 

TRUE 

Attendee 


maiito:mferaci(@plavm akerstrateaies.com 


Role 

REQ-PARTICIPANT 


RSVP 

TRUE 

Attendee 


mailto:annesteckel@vahoo.com 


Role 

REQ-PARTICIPANT 


RSVP 

TRUE 

Attendee 


mailto:lschafer@dcdiamondaro up.com 


Role 

REQ-PARTICIPANT 


RSVP 

TRUE 

Attendee 


mailto:dravis.samantha@epa.a ov 


Role 

REQ-PARTICIPANT 


RSVP 

TRUE 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005501-00001 



Attendee _ mailto:dominquez.alexand er@epa.gov 

Role REQ-PARTICIPANT 
RSVP TRUE 

Attendee _ mailto:qqebolvs@worldenerqy .net 

Role REQ-PARTICIPANT 
RSVP TRUE 

Uniform Resource Locator 

message://%3CSN1PR09MB082988A1A32EBDC70CA1B9869D690%40SN1PR09MB0829.nam 
prd09. prod.outlook.com%3E?c=1505239128&k=%7C527385600/p+hy8i05Fi 

CREATED 

20170912T181716Z 


Description 


Please do not edit this section of the descriptio n. 

This event has a Google Hangouts video call. 

Join: https://plus.goog 

le.com/hangouts/_/dcdiamondgroup.com/lschafer?hceid=bHNjaGFmZXJAZGNkaWFtb25 
kZ3JvdXAuY29t._6t1j4hhl64qjgba58p2j2b9k6gsj8b9p64qkab9i88q34ea26523cd9h68&h s=121 

View your event at https://www.google.com/calendar/event?action=VI 

EW&eid=XzZ0MWo0aGhsNjRxamdiYTU4cDJqMml5azZnc2o4YjlwNjRxa2FiOWk4OHEzNGVhMjY1 
MjNjZDIoNjggZHJhdmlzLnNhbWFudGhhQGVwYS5nb3Y&tok=MjcjbHNjaGFmZXJAZGNkaWFtb25 
kZ3JvdXAuY29tM2U1YzFINWIwYTI0ZmYzZmZiMTE5NDQyOWQ2OTg0ZjQ4YmExNmNjNA&ctz=Ame 
rica/New York&hl=en. 


Last Modified 

20170912T193724Z 

Location 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20004, USA 

Sequence Number 

0 

Status 

CONFIRMED 


Summary 

Biodiesel Meeting w EPA (Mandy Gunasekara, Samantha Dravis, Gene Gebolys, others) 


Time Transparency 
OPAQUE 


X-APPLE-SUGGESTION-INFO-CHANGED-FIELDS 

0 


X-APPLE-SUGGESTION-INFO-CHANGES-ACKNOWLEDGED 

FALSE 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005501-00002 







X-APPLE-SUGGESTION-INFO-OPAQUE-KEY 

|527385600/p+hy8i05Fi 

X-APPLE-SUGGESTION-INFO-UNIQUE-KEY 

|2|\|527385600/p+hy8i05Fi|\|5\|\\\ |A2FEC788-DA2D-46CD-940B- 
CBF5453B63FF\\\|<SN1 PR09MB082988A1A32EBDC70CA1B 
9869D690@SN1PR09MB0829.namprd09.prod.outlook.com> 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005501-00003 



From: Rob Underwood 

Location: 3500 WJCN 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Accepted: Meeting with the Petroleum Marketers Association of America (PMAA) 
Start Date/Time: Thur 10/12/2017 3:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Thur 10/12/2017 3:30:00 PM 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005502-00001 



To: Dravis, Samantha[dravis.samantha@epa.gov] 

From: Roy Murray 

Sent: Thur 9/14/2017 4:33:36 PM 

Subject: Help Protect Refiners Jobs In Reference to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ- OAR-2017-0091 
Samantha Dravis, 

The time is now to help prevent a massive loss of good-paying American jobs. The EPA 
currently implements the Renewable Fuel Standard in a way that makes all U.S. refiners 
responsible for ensuring that certain levels of renewable fuels are blended into gasoline, even if 
they do not have capabilities to do such blending. 

This nonsensical set-up allows large integrated oil companies that blend more fuel than they 
refine and big convenience store gasoline chains (who do much of the blending) to collect 
valuable credits for the renewable fuel they blend into the pure gasoline they get from refineries. 
Independent refiners, who do little or no blending themselves, then end up purchasing those 
credits in order to demonstrate compliance with a process they have little control over. Small and 
independent refiners are at risk of going offline due to this backwards regulation, with 75,000- 
150,000 U.S. workers potentially impacted. 

Please, help save our jobs and make this right. Please move the point of obligation for the RFS 
(Docket ID No. EPA—HQ— OAR—2017—0091) in a way that fixes this inequity. 

Thank you. 

Roy Murray 
108 Arch 

Philadelphia, PA 19106 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005504-00001 



From: Kent Lassman 

Location: 3513A William Jefferson Clinton North 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Accepted: Meeting with Competitive Enterprise Institute President Kent Lassman 
Start Date/Time: Fri 9/29/2017 7:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Fri 9/29/2017 7:30:00 PM 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005505-00001 



From: Kime, Robin 

Location: DCRoomARN3500/OPEI 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: To be rescheduled: AGA and NGVA Regulatory Reform Discussion Focusing on the Subpart 

W Reporting Rule and the PCB Rules 

Start Date/Time: Tue 9/12/2017 5:30:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Tue 9/12/2017 6:00:00 PM 

AGA 05 15 2017 Comments on EPA Rule Review Docket EPA-HQ-QA-2017-0190.pdf 
NGVA ERA Regulatory Review May 2017 Final.pdf 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on 
your right as you exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 10 minutes 
prior to the meeting with photo IDs to clear Security. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all 
other matters call Robin Kime (202)564-6587. 


Attendees: 

Kathryn Clay, Allison Cunningham and Pamela Lacey 


Request: The American Gas Association (AGA) and Natural Gas Vehicles of America 
(NGVA) would like to arrange a follow-up meeting with you to discuss our ideas for 
regulatory reform, as described in our attached comments, filed May 15, 2017 in Docket 
EPA-HQ-OA-2017. AGA’s comments address several programs, but at this meeting, 
we will want to focus on revisions we have suggested to improve: (1) the Subpart W 
reporting rule and (2) the PCB rules. 


Contact: 

Pamela A. Lacey | Chief Regulatory Counsel 
American Gas Association< http://www.aga.org > 

400 N. Capitol St., NW | Washington, DC | 20001 

P: 202-824-7340 | M: 202-809-6565 | F: 202-824-9190 | placev@aga.org 

< mailto:placev@aga.org > 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005509-00001 



To: Dravis, Samantha[dravis.samantha@epa.gov] 

From: Michael Tobin, Clear Law Institute 

Sent: Tue 11/14/2017 3:37:49 PM 

Subject: [SPAM] Detecting Deception: Practical Skills for Lawyers 



Detecting Dec itii hi i ii* 
Lawyers 


licai Skills fo 


November 

30 

3 pm - 4:30 pm ET 


Presenter: Michael Johnson , CEO of Clear Law lnst|||i|iij 
former U.S. Department of Justice attorney' 


Credits: CLE in all states (Credit De t a ils 


Can't attend live? By registering, you will be able to view the 
course live, view a recording at any time after the live 
presentation, or 


Viewing Options: View on your computer, tablet, or 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005513-00001 











17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005513-00002 















17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005513-00003 













From: Chris Kersting 

Location: DCRoomARN3500/OPEI 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Accepted: Meeting with the Specialty Equipment Market Association 
Start Date/Time: Thur 9/14/2017 3:30:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Thur 9/14/2017 4:00:00 PM 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005516-00001 



To: Dravis, Samantha[dravis.samantha@epa.gov] 

From: Larry Laboe 

Sent: Thur 9/21/2017 11:15:16 PM 

Subject: Help Protect Refiners Jobs In Reference to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ- OAR-2017-0091 
Samantha Dravis, 

The time is now to help prevent a massive loss of good-paying American jobs. The EPA 
currently implements the Renewable Fuel Standard in a way that makes all U.S. refiners 
responsible for ensuring that certain levels of renewable fuels are blended into gasoline, even if 
they do not have capabilities to do such blending. 

This nonsensical set-up allows large integrated oil companies that blend more fuel than they 
refine and big convenience store gasoline chains (who do much of the blending) to collect 
valuable credits for the renewable fuel they blend into the pure gasoline they get from refineries. 
Independent refiners, who do little or no blending themselves, then end up purchasing those 
credits in order to demonstrate compliance with a process they have little control over. Small and 
independent refiners are at risk of going offline due to this backwards regulation, with 75,000- 
150,000 U.S. workers potentially impacted. 

Please, help save our jobs and make this right. Please move the point of obligation for the RFS 
(Docket ID No. EPA—HQ— OAR—2017—0091) in a way that fixes this inequity. 

Thank you. 

Larry Laboe 
7348 lakeshore dr 
Newport, MI 48166 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005517-00001 



To: Dravis, Samantha[dravis.samantha@epa.gov] 

From: John Thomason 

Sent: Thur 9/21/2017 10:22:38 PM 

Subject: Help Protect Refiners Jobs In Reference to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ- OAR-2017-0091 
Samantha Dravis, 

The time is now to help prevent a massive loss of good-paying American jobs. The EPA 
currently implements the Renewable Fuel Standard in a way that makes all U.S. refiners 
responsible for ensuring that certain levels of renewable fuels are blended into gasoline, even if 
they do not have capabilities to do such blending. 

This nonsensical set-up allows large integrated oil companies that blend more fuel than they 
refine and big convenience store gasoline chains (who do much of the blending) to collect 
valuable credits for the renewable fuel they blend into the pure gasoline they get from refineries. 
Independent refiners, who do little or no blending themselves, then end up purchasing those 
credits in order to demonstrate compliance with a process they have little control over. Small and 
independent refiners are at risk of going offline due to this backwards regulation, with 75,000- 
150,000 U.S. workers potentially impacted. 

Please, help save our jobs and make this right. Please move the point of obligation for the RFS 
(Docket ID No. EPA—HQ— OAR—2017—0091) in a way that fixes this inequity. 

Thank you. 

John Thomason 
4130 E Dunbar Rd 
Monroe, MI 48161 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005518-00001 



From: Microsoft Outlook 

Location: 3500 WJCN 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Meeting Forward Notification: Hold for Intro with Matt T. and OEJ Managers 
Start Date/Time: Thur 9/28/2017 2:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Thur 9/28/2017 2:30:00 PM 

Your meeting was forwarded 

Wallace, Maria has forwarded your meeting request to additional recipients. 

Meeting 

Hold for Intro with Matt T. and 00 Managers 


Meeting Time 

Thursday, September 28, 2017 10:00 AM-10:30 AM. 


Recipients 

Teiada. Matthew 
Lewis, Sheila 
Lee. Charles 
Minter, Marsha 
Ruhl, Suzi 


All times listed are in the following time zone: (UTC-G5:0Q) Eastern Time (US & Canada) 




Server 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005519-00001 



From: Jonathan E. Missner 

Location: DCRoomARN3500/OPEI 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Accepted: Meeting with the Specialty Equipment Market Association 
Start Date/Time: Thur 9/14/2017 3:30:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Thur 9/14/2017 4:00:00 PM 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005520-00001 



From: Microsoft Outlook 

Location: 3500 WJCN 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Meeting Forward Notification: NAFTA Briefing 
Start Date/Time: Mon 9/11/2017 1:30:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Mon 9/11/2017 2:00:00 PM 

Your meeting was forwarded 

Schwab, Justin has forwarded your meeting request to additional recipients. 

Meeting 

NAFTA Briefing 

Meeting Time 

Monday, September 11, 2017 9:30 AM-10:00 AM. 

Recipients 

Siciliano, CarolAnn 


All times listed are in the following time zone: (UTC-05:00) Ea 


Time (US & Canada) 




ige Server 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005521-00001 



To: Dravis, Samantha[dravis.samantha@epa.gov] 

From: Michael Tobin, Clear Law Institute 

Sent: Mon 11/13/2017 3:26:05 PM 

Subject: [SPAM] Ethics and the Virtual Practice of Law 




it i Ltl 'ill 1 i ttir V if §' 4 ! Tl ii F ii* cm 1 T/TL il' inM cd %i'S 


November 

28 

1 pm - 2:15 pm ET 


Presenters: Laure n E. Sny der and Thomas B. Mason, of 
Harris, Wiltshire &”Grannis~LLP ’ " Hill 


Credits: CLE in ail states (C r ed it D eta-i IsT fllllgtS^ 

Can't attend live? By registering, you will be table® 
course live, view a recording at any time after the live 
presentation, or both. 

Viewing Options: View on your computer, tablet, or 


Course Reviews: View Testimonials 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005523-00001 










17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005523-00002 

















I Jf jWijrlpipls™Kl#1 p| II 






I i'C..;.'' 

I 

im$T 

I 


















. ■ 








I.©arn iviorc^ 


•':' I 









|,, .& R ?“ f '£ hi? * S;■ ef 


I 


Questions® 
■ease call us. 




fMmmmm 

. 


firfe 

Siiil iiiMMWS '.."£:V 


~ ir Mailing Address: 


Clear Law Institute | 4601 N. Fairfax Dr., Ste 1200 | Arlington | V/ 

R emov e me fro m fu tu re emails . / ..■I .. 


m email 


iBeill I 1111 

. my-'-.---;;:/;. /.|:|f 





if ill 


■ 


IS,: 


Vfif 


I 


;OV 


■■■■■■ 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005523-00003 





















To: Dravis, Samantha[dravis.samantha@epa.gov] 

From: Michael Tobin, Clear Law Institute 

Sent: Wed 11/8/2017 3:59:16 PM 

Subject: [SPAM] Tomorrow: Financial Tools for Attorneys: Increasing Your Clients’ Performance 



financial Fools for Att 
Clients" Performance 


i" l£" d jjjf tC m i 11C# C €ti i I' i Y Ci 1 







Presenter; Morris Nunes , Private Practice Attorney 

Credits: CPE, CLE in all states ( Credit: De t ails) 

Can't attend live? By registering, you will bplble^t^^ 
course live, view a recording at any time after the live 
presentation, or both. 


Viewing Options: View on youncornputer, tablet, or 
smartphone 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005524-00001 











All-Access Membership 


Earn continuing education credit for no additional fee 
Access courses on your computer, tablet, or smartphone 
More than 75 live webinars each month 
More than 1,300 on-demand courses 


Learn More 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005524-00002 









17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005524-00003 













To: Dravis, Samantha[dravis.samantha@epa.gov] 

From: Foxit Software Incorporated 

Sent: Wed 11/8/2017 1:07:35 AM 

Subject: How to track different versions of your PDF with ConnectedPDF 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005525-00001 
















Our mailing address is: Foxis. Software 41841 Albrae Street. Fremont. CA S4S38. USA 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005525-00002 










To: Dravis, Samantha[dravis.samantha@epa.gov] 

From: Robert Shipman 

Sent: Thur 9/21/2017 2:14:40 AM 

Subject: Help Protect Refiners Jobs In Reference to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ- OAR-2017-0091 
Samantha Dravis, 

The time is now to help prevent a massive loss of good-paying American jobs. The EPA 
currently implements the Renewable Fuel Standard in a way that makes all U.S. refiners 
responsible for ensuring that certain levels of renewable fuels are blended into gasoline, even if 
they do not have capabilities to do such blending. 

This nonsensical set-up allows large integrated oil companies that blend more fuel than they 
refine and big convenience store gasoline chains (who do much of the blending) to collect 
valuable credits for the renewable fuel they blend into the pure gasoline they get from refineries. 
Independent refiners, who do little or no blending themselves, then end up purchasing those 
credits in order to demonstrate compliance with a process they have little control over. Small and 
independent refiners are at risk of going offline due to this backwards regulation, with 75,000- 
150,000 U.S. workers potentially impacted. 

Please, help save our jobs and make this right. Please move the point of obligation for the RFS 
(Docket ID No. EPA—HQ— OAR—2017—0091) in a way that fixes this inequity. 

Thank you. 

Robert Shipman 
805 Culley Rd 
Holland, OH 43528 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005526-00001 



To: Dravis, Samantha[dravis.samantha@epa.gov] 

From: Eric Wilson 

Sent: Wed 9/20/2017 8:53:53 PM 

Subject: Help Protect Refiners Jobs In Reference to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ- OAR-2017-0091 
Samantha Dravis, 

The time is now to help prevent a massive loss of good-paying American jobs. The EPA 
currently implements the Renewable Fuel Standard in a way that makes all U.S. refiners 
responsible for ensuring that certain levels of renewable fuels are blended into gasoline, even if 
they do not have capabilities to do such blending. 

This nonsensical set-up allows large integrated oil companies that blend more fuel than they 
refine and big convenience store gasoline chains (who do much of the blending) to collect 
valuable credits for the renewable fuel they blend into the pure gasoline they get from refineries. 
Independent refiners, who do little or no blending themselves, then end up purchasing those 
credits in order to demonstrate compliance with a process they have little control over. Small and 
independent refiners are at risk of going offline due to this backwards regulation, with 75,000- 
150,000 U.S. workers potentially impacted. 

Please, help save our jobs and make this right. Please move the point of obligation for the RFS 
(Docket ID No. EPA—HQ— OAR—2017—0091) in a way that fixes this inequity. 

Thank you. 

Eric Wilson 
903 Brookley 
Toledo, OH 43607 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005528-00001 



To: Dravis, Samantha[dravis.samantha@epa.gov] 

From: Gerald Bodnar 

Sent: Wed 9/20/2017 8:53:39 PM 

Subject: Help Protect Refiners Jobs In Reference to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ- OAR-2017-0091 
Samantha Dravis, 

The time is now to help prevent a massive loss of good-paying American jobs. The EPA 
currently implements the Renewable Fuel Standard in a way that makes all U.S. refiners 
responsible for ensuring that certain levels of renewable fuels are blended into gasoline, even if 
they do not have capabilities to do such blending. 

This nonsensical set-up allows large integrated oil companies that blend more fuel than they 
refine and big convenience store gasoline chains (who do much of the blending) to collect 
valuable credits for the renewable fuel they blend into the pure gasoline they get from refineries. 
Independent refiners, who do little or no blending themselves, then end up purchasing those 
credits in order to demonstrate compliance with a process they have little control over. Small and 
independent refiners are at risk of going offline due to this backwards regulation, with 75,000- 
150,000 U.S. workers potentially impacted. 

Please, help save our jobs and make this right. Please move the point of obligation for the RFS 
(Docket ID No. EPA—HQ— OAR—2017—0091) in a way that fixes this inequity. 

Thank you. 

Gerald Bodnar 
2324 Roseann dr 
Toledo, OH 43611 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005529-00001 



From: Delahoyde, Magdelana A. EOP/WHO 

Location: SoW 230A 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: CAFE/Global/Alliance Meeting 
Start Date/Time: Thur 9/28/2017 6:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Thur 9/28/2017 7:00:00 PM 

The purpose of this meeting is to discuss next steps in policy development on the Mid-Term Review and 
CAFE/GHG rulemakings. 

WAVES link: https://events.whitehouse.gov/form?rid=9936YQY9KG 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005530-00001 



To: Dravis, Samantha[dravis.samantha@epa.gov] 

From: Michael Tobin, Clear Law Institute 

Sent: Fri 11/10/2017 3:56:58 PM 

Subject: [SPAM] Microsoft Excel for the Paralegal 







i i %sm Umm 

4 # 


November 

13 

3 pm - 4:15 pm ET 


Presenter 

Credits: NALA, 

Can't attend live? By registering, you wiii be able to view the 
course live, view a recording at any time after the live 
presentation, or both. 


Viewing Options: View on your computer, tablet, or 



Register Today 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005531-00001 














All-Access Membership 


Earn continuing education credit for no additional fee 
Access courses on your computer, tablet, or smartphone 
More than 75 live webinars each month 
More than 1,300 on-demand courses 


Learn More 


Upcoming Webinars 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005531-00002 





17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005531-00003 















To: Dravis, Samantha[dravis.samantha@epa.gov] 

From: Foxit Software Incorporated 

Sent: Fri 11/10/2017 12:30:40 PM 

Subject: Webinar: Automating FOIA and Section 508 



View in browser 



Is it possible to automate accessibility in PDF documents? Auto-tagging and Accessibility 


Checkers in PDF editors can be applied manually, but how can this work on mass quantity of 
documents? Learn how automation with Foxit PDF Compressor converts, OCR and auto-tags 
batches of files (MS Word docs, emails, scanned documents, plain PDFs), cutting down the 
amount of time spent on the compliance basics. Then the new release of Foxit PhantomPDF 9.0 
can be used to verify and ensure the content makes sense for assistive technology. 

Talk to our experts, Carsten Heiermann, CEO of Foxit Europe and Dan Morris, Sr. Solutions 
Architect, who will walk you through the process, making accessibility implementation quick and 


easy. 

Webinar date and time: 

Day: Thursday, 16th November 
10am Pacific time (1pm Eastern 


Meet Your Presenters 



:ime) 


Carsten Heiermann 
CEO of Foxit Europe 


Dan Morris 

Senior Solutions Architect 
Foxit Software 


Dee Dee Kato 

Senior Director of Marketing 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005532-00001 












17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005532-00002 






To: Dravis, Samantha[dravis.samantha@epa.gov] 

From: Michael Tobin, Clear Law Institute 

Sent: Thur 11/9/2017 3:23:03 PM 

Subject: [SPAM] Contract Law and E-Signatures 



Contract Law and E-Signatures 


November 

13 

1 pm - 2:15 pm ET 


Presenter: Ken Moy le, Managing Member of K8 

Credits: CLE in all states (Credit Details) 

Can't attend at this date and time? By registering, you will 
also be able to view a recording at any time after the 
presentation. TT/w 

Viewing Options: View on your computer, tablet, or 


Course Reviews: View Testimonials 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005534-00001 
















All-Access Membership 


Earn continuing education credit for no additional fee 
Access courses on your computer, tablet, or smartphone 
More than 75 live webinars each month 
More than 1,300 on-demand courses 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005534-00002 










17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005534-00003 

















To: Dravis, Samantha[dravis.samantha@epa.gov] 

From: virtualizationwebinars 

Sent: Tue 11/7/2017 4:37:08 PM 

Subject: Invite - 2017 Red Hat Government Symposium - Livestream 


Thoughtbridge 392 Mason Rd. Milford, NH 03055 603-812-7399 Unsubscribe me from this 
database— 


§017 Red Hat Government Symposium - Livestream 

H3 Thursday, November 9, 

2017 lllllllllllll 

M 8:30am - 2:00pm ET 


H Online 



The demands and opportunities for government IT are at an all-time high. Open 
source collaboration provides the strongest foundation to help you meet these 
critical demands in a smart, efficient way. 


Community-powered innovation gives you the most out of emerging 
technologies - whether it's modernizing applications and infrastructure, speeding 
application development, moving workloads to the cloud, or adopting DevOps 
with containers. 

Join ns for the Red Hat Government Symposium online livestream from 
Washington, D.C. to hear from government and open source experts as they share 
the most interesting and collaborative projects in government. 

Click here to view the current on-site agenda. The final livestream agenda is still 
in progress and will be provided to you as the event nears. 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005535-00001 


To: Dravis, Samantha[dravis.samantha@epa.gov] 

From: Michael Tobin, Clear Law Institute 

Sent: Tue 11/7/2017 3:53:06 PM 

Subject: [SPAM] Law Firm Cyber Security and Legal Malpractice Risks 



Law Firm Cyber Security and Legal Malpractice 

w¥ w¥ m 

iv.sks 


November 

20 

3 pm-4:15 pm ET 


Presenter: M argaret Reetz , partner a 



Credits: CLE in all states (Credit Details) 


Can't attend live? By registering, you will be able to view the 
course live, view a recording at any time after the live 
presentation, or 


Viewing Options: View on your computer, tablet, or 
smartphone 


Course Reviews: View 





17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005536-00001 


















All-Access Membership 


Earn continuing education credit for no additional fee 
Access courses on your computer, tablet, or smartphone 
More than 75 live webinars each month 
More than 1,300 on-demand courses 


Learn More 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005536-00002 







17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005536-00003 













To: Dravis, Samantha[dravis.samantha@epa.gov] 

From: Foxit Software Incorporated 

Sent: Wed 11/15/2017 4:38:44 PM 

Subject: Webinar: Automating FOIA and Section 508 



View in browser 



Is it possible to automate accessibility in PDF documents? Auto-tagging and Accessibility 


Checkers in PDF editors can be applied manually, but how can this work on mass quantity of 
documents? Learn how automation with Foxit PDF Compressor converts, OCR and auto-tags 
batches of files (MS Word docs, emails, scanned documents, plain PDFs), cutting down the 
amount of time spent on the compliance basics. Then the new release of Foxit PhantomPDF 9.0 
can be used to verify and ensure the content makes sense for assistive technology. 

Talk to our experts, Carsten Heiermann, CEO of Foxit Europe and Dan Morris, Sr. Solutions 
Architect, who will walk you through the process, making accessibility implementation quick and 


easy. 

Webinar date and time: 

Day: Thursday, 16th November 
10am Pacific time (1pm Eastern 


Meet Your Presenters 



:ime) 


Carsten Heiermann 
CEO of Foxit Europe 


Dan Morris 

Senior Solutions Architect 
Foxit Software 


Dee Dee Kato 

Senior Director of Marketing 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005537-00001 












17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005537-00002 






To: Dravis, Samantha[dravis.samantha@epa.gov] 

From: Michael Tobin, Clear Law Institute 

Sent: Wed 11/15/2017 4:13:22 PM 

Subject: [SPAM] Negotiating Representations, Warranties and Indemnification Clauses in Technology 
Agreements 



Negotiating Representations, Warranties a 
Indemnification Clauses in Technology 
Agreements 




Credits: CLE in all states (Credit Details 


Can't attend live? By registering; you will be able to view the 
coilrsi live, view a recording at any time after the live 
prelectation, or both. 


Viewing Options: View on ybulcciriputectabletlch 
smartphone (iCIs 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005538-00001 

















17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005538-00002 









17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005538-00003 

































To: Samantha Dravis[Dravis.Samantha@epamail.epa.gov]; Brittany 

Bolen[Bolen. Brittany@epamaii.epa.gov] 

From: Microsoft Outlook 

Sent: Wed 10/11/2017 4:21:12 PM 

Subject: Undeliverable: RE: OP Policy Review - ORPM Office Director Approval Notification (SAN 6350 - 
Final / Administrator's Signature / Review #1 / R09 - 'Nevada - Visibility FIP Rescission for the Mohave 
Generating Station') 

RE: OP Policy Review - ORPM Office Director Approval Notification (SAN 6350 - Final / Administrator's 
Signature / Review #1 / R09 - 'Nevada - Visibility FIP Rescission for the Mohave Generating Station') 



dravis.samantha Office 365 Recipients 

Action Required Recipients 


Unknown To address 

Couldn't deliver to the following recipients: 

Dravis.Samantha@epamail.epa.gov, Bolen.Brittany@epamail.epa.gov 

How to Fix It 

The address may be misspelled or may not exist. Try one or more of 

the following: 

• Send the message again following these steps: In Outlook, open 
this non-delivery report (NDR) and choose Send Again from the 
Report ribbon. In Outlook on the web, select this NDR, then select the 
link "To send this message again, click here." Then delete and retype 
the entire recipient address. If prompted with an Auto-Complete List 
suggestion don't select it. After typing the complete address, click 

Hi Send. 

• Contact the recipient (by phone, for example) to check that the address 

exists and is correct. /;' )i :: 'ii!Hiil!llHS!i8i' 

• The recipient may have set up email forwarding to an incorrect 
address. Ask them to check that any forwarding they've set up is 
working correctly. 

• Clear the recipient Auto-Complete List in Outlook or Outlook on the 
web by following the steps in this article: Fix email delivery issues for 

erroicode 5.1.1 Oim Office 365 . and then send the message again. 


you're an email admin, refer to the More Info for Email Admins section 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005539-00001 











below. 'lllllllillllfillllllllilllllllllllllllllllll^ 

Was this helpful? Send Redback to Microsoft . 

More Info for Email Admins 

Status code: 550 5.1.10 

This error occurs because the sender sent a message to an email address hosted by 
Office 365 but the address is incorrect or doesn't exist at the destination domain. The 
error is reported by the recipient domain's email server, but most often it must be fixed 
by the person who sent the message. If the steps in the How to Fix It section above 
don't fix the problem, and you're the email admin for the recipient, try one or more of the 
following: 

The email address exists and is correct - Confirm that the recipient address exists, is 
correct, and is accepting messages. 

Synchronize your directories - If you have a hybrid environment and are using 
directory synchronization make sure the recipient's email address is synced correctly in 
both Office 365 and in your on-premises directory. 

Errant forwarding rule - Check for forwarding rules that aren't behaving as expected. 
Forwarding can be set up by an admin via mail flow rules or mailbox forwarding address 
settings, or by the recipient via the Inbox Rules feature. 

Recipient has a valid license - Make sure the recipient has an Office 365 license 
assigned to them. The recipient's email admin can use the Office 365 admin center to 
assign a license (Users > Active Users > select the recipient > Assigned License > Edit). 

Mail flow settings and MX records are not correct - Misconfigured mail flow or MX 
record settings can cause this error. Check your Office 365 mail flow settings to make 
sure your domain and any mail flow connectors are set up correctly. Also, work with your 
domain registrar to make sure the MX records for your domain are configured correctly. 

For more information and additional tips to fix this issue, see Fix email delivery issues 
for error code 5.1.10 in Office 365 . 

Original Message Details 

Created Date: 10/11/2017 4:21:10 PM 

Sender Address: dravis.samantha@epa.gov 

Recipient Address: Dravis.Samantha@epamail.epa.gov, 

Bolen.Brittany@epamail.epa.gov 

Subject: RE: OP Policy Review - ORPM Office Director Approval 

Notification (SAN 6350 - Final / Administrator's Signature / 
Review #1 / R09 - 'Nevada - Visibility FIP Rescission for the 
Mohave Generating Station') 

Error Details 

Reported error: 550 5.1.10 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipientNotFound; Recipient 

not found by SMTP address lookup 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005539-00002 



DSN generated by: 


Message Hops 

HOPTIME FROM TO WITH RELAY 

(UTC) TIME 

PM 

2 !°il^ 01 ^ w HPR09MB1469 .namprd(M\^Hi?RflM®Wfi<6mamprd(Miprofikrftj8M3IPca)fffrver 2 sec 

PM"' *^ (version=TLS1_2, 

cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_2f 

Original Message Headers 


Ailth.ent i cat :Lon.Resu 11 s : epa. gov; dkim=none (mes sage 


not 


c t i 


gn 


header.d=none;epa.gov; dmarc=none action=none header.from=epa.gov; 

Received: from MWHPRO9MB14 6 9.namprdO9.prod.outlook.com (10.173.50.19) by 

9.0 9 MB14 8 6 . namprdO 9 . prod. outlook. com (10.173.50.13 6) with Microsoft SMTE 
version=TLSl 2, cipher=TLS ECDHE RSA 
5.20.77.7; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 16:21:12 +0000 


Server 


1 AES 256 CBC SHA384 P256) id 


:ei.ved: from. MWHPRO 9MB14 6 9 . namprdO 9 . prod. out 
909M'B 1469 .namprd09 .prod. outlook, com ( [ 10 . 


look.com ( [ 10.17 3.50.19]) by 
L73.50.19]) wi 


,U.i.CI 


i id 


15.20.0077.020; Vi 


11 Oct 2017 16:21:10 +0000 


C o n t e n t.T yp e : app 1 i. c at i. o n /m s --1 n e f; n ame 

C o nten t.T rans fe r.En coding: binary 

From.: 

To: M 


"winma.il. dat" 


fir 


Dr a vis, 


Samantha" <aravis . samanrnaisepa. gov> 
i ns , Nic o1e" <Owe n s.Nico1e @ epama i.1 .epa.gov>, S ama n tha 


cavis 


tt « 


It Tjr 


B r i 1 1a n y B o1e n <Bo1e n.B ri11 a n y@epamail.epa.gov>, A *u ± j, 

<Ke nn y.S ha n n o n @ep a.gov>, "Kime, Robin" <Kime.Robin @ 

” Pritchard, 

Ei1e e n ? * < P ritcha rd.Eileen@epa.gov>, 


K e n n y, S h a n n o n 




gov> , 


?? - 


Rees, Sarah" <rees.sarah@epa.gov>, 




Nickerson, Wi].1 iam" <Nickerson.William@epa.gov>, "Corra1es, Mark 

Curry, Bridgid" <Curry.Bridgid@epa.gov> 




<Corrales 


a 


r~i 


ft T 


VanLare 


Vdams, Darryl <Adams.Darryl@epa.gov> 


P a u.L a < V a, n L a r e . P a u 1 a @ e p a. g o v >, 

3 ub j e c t: RE: 0 P Po1icy Review - ORPM Offic e Dire cto r App r ova1 Notific a tion 

(SAN 6350 . Final / Administrator's Signature / Review #1 / R09 . 'Nevada . 

Visibi.]..ity FTP Rescission for the Mohave Generating Station ? ) 

e a d T opic: O P Po1icy Review - 0RPM Office Dire c to r App r ova1 No tifica tio n 

AN 6350 . Final / Administrator f s Signature / Review #1 / R09 . f Nevada . 

Visibility FIP Rescission for the Mohave Generating Station ? ) 

■ ead.I ndex: AQHTQqTFwBvMMVLu 4 U.:!.... LsYWY /1Z YD 6 Le 1 JXw 

D a t e: Wed, 11 O c t 2 017 16:21:10 +0000 
Message.ID: 

<M.WHPR09MB1469E2BEBF48354DE581C6F7E64A0@MWHPR09MB14 6 9. namprd09.prod.outlook.com> 
References : <OF.AE FF 7 E 5 B . 7 3 8 3 5 0 2 D - ON852581B6.005470F4- 
852581B 6.00547 2 B 6 @epamai1.epa.gov> 

I n..Rep 1 y.To: < O FAE F F 7 E 5 B . 7 3 8 3502 D - ON852581B6.005470F4- 

85 2 581B6.0 05 47 2 B 6 @ ep amai1.ep a.gov> 

A c c e pt-La n g a age: en.U S 

C on t e n t - L a n gu a g e : e n.U S 

X-MS.H a s-Att a ch: yes 

X.MS.TNEF-Corre l.ator : 

<MWHPR09MB14 6 9E2 BEBF 4 8 3 5 4 DE 5 8 1C 6F7 E 6 4A 0@MWHPR09MB14 69.namprdO9.prod.outlook.com> 
MIME-Version: 1.0 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005539-00003 



































































































194::dO17 I 


X.O rigina ting-IP: f 2620:117:501C 

X.MS.Pub I. i cT r a f f i c T ype : Em a i .1 

X.Mi c r o s o f t - E x ch a n g e - D i agn o s t: i. c s : 

1; MWHPRO9MB14 6 9; 35:1nApoTE4aC+Q+D5mCya1E/AsYAJzyVBNUICs7hUnwuN+uT3Ta01JyW8ACt j QnzGnceAnGp0 

X.MS-Exchange-Antisp am-S RFA-Dia gn o sties: S S0 S;S S 0R; 

X.Fo r e f r o n t.An.t i spam.Repo r t: 

S FV: S KI; S C L : -1; S FV: S KI; S F S : ; DIR: INB; S F P: ; S C L: - 
1;SRVR:MWHPRO 9MB14 8 6;H:MWHPRO9 MB14 6 9.namprdO9.prod.outlook.com;FPR:;SPF:None;LANG:en; 

R e t u r n.P a t h: d r a v i s . s am a n t h a, @ e p a . g o v 

X.MS.O f fice 3 6 5.F i.1 terin g.Co r r e1a tion-id: 4d6b1e 8 9-e 6 e f-4 c 01-81d5.0 8 d510 c 4158c 

X.M ic r o s o ft.Antis p am: 

UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID: (22001) (2017030254152) (2017052603199) (49563074) <2017i 


X.MI c r o s o f t - E x c h a, n g e - D i a g n o s t i c s : 


MWHPRO9 MB148 6 ; 3 : 5 AA+ qCeXbGQ+ZAuX 5 HiS DLh0ivYyg/J3vkaH C U 6 8 LtpKJwc oMyHGs n 5 An 3 3 AB 9 ] 


X.MS.TrafficTypeDiagnostic: MWHPRO9MB1486: 

X.Ex cha nge.Antisp am-Rep o r t-!e s t: 

UriScan: (141739891587465) (21748063052155) (229425074694992); 

X.Ex change.An tispam-Repo rt-CFA-Test: 

BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID: (100000700101) (10 0105000095) (100000701101) (100105300095) (1000 

X.M i c r o s o f t.E x c h a n g e.D i a g n o s t i c s : 

1; MWHPRO 9MB148 6; 4 : :L3yFspF6 Jm5gFGCP/+WAU2 
X.M i c r o s o f t.E x c h a n g e: - D i a g n o s t i c s : 

1;MWHPRO9MB1486;5:S+wtqUysVgkpp59Yfs2U438uaSvSTuODegKRdt2n064uI5a4T7gzeVAkhQX0X 


i LY+mEERTxL6 5IphZ f1ZvIp6mbh0/FTvZnfC+UFX 


3pamDia gno s ticOutpu t: 1:0 


S 

X.MS.Exchange.CrossTenant.OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Oct 2017 16:21:10.3332 


IT 1H 


r* t 

C) 


X M S E x c h a, n g e C r o s s T e n a n t 


X 


X 


: -F romEntit vHe 


■MS.Exc 


■CrossTenant 


Hosted 


I d: 8 8b 3 7 8 b 3.67 4 8-4867-ac f 9-7 6 aacbe ca 6 a7 


■ M S.E x c h a n g e.T r a n s p o r t - C r o s s T e n a n t H e a d e r s S t amp 


MWHPRO 9 MB14 86 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005539-00004 









































































To: Owens, Nicole[Owens.Nicole@epa.gov]; Samantha 

Dravis[Dravis.Samantha@epamail.epa.gov] 

Cc: Brittany Bolen[Bolen.Brittany@epamaii.epa.gov]; Kenny, Shannon[Kenny.Shannon@epa.gov]; 

Kime, Robin[Kime.Robin@epa.gov]; Pritchard, Eileen[Pritchard.Eileen@epa.gov]; Rees, 
Sarah[rees.sarah@epa.gov]; Nickerson, Wiiiiam[Nickerson.William@epa.gov]; Corraies, 

Mark[Corraies.Mark@epa.gov]; Curry, Bridgid[Curry.Bridgid@epa.gov]; VanLare, 

Paula[VanLare.Paula@epa.gov]; Adams, Darryl[Adams.Darryi@epa.gov] 

From: Dravis, Samantha 

Sent: Wed 10/11/2017 4:21:10 PM 

Subject: RE: OP Policy Review - ORPM Office Director Approval Notification (SAN 6350 - Final / 
Administrator's Signature / Review #1 / R09 - 'Nevada - Visibility FIP Rescission for the Mohave 
Generating Station') 


Approved 


From: Nicole Owens [mailto:Owens.Nicole@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 11:22 AM 

To: Samantha Dravis <Dravis.Samantha@epamail.epa.gov> 

Cc: Brittany Bolen <Bolen.Brittany@epamail.epa.gov>; Kenny, Shannon 
<Kenny.Shannon@epa.gov>; Kime, Robin <Kime.Robin@epa.gov>; Pritchard, Eileen 
<Pritchard.Eileen@epa.gov>; Rees, Sarah <rees.sarah@epa.gov>; Nickerson, William 
<Nickerson.William@epa.gov>; Corraies, Mark <Corrales.Mark@epa.gov>; Curry, Bridgid 
<Curry.Bridgid@epa.gov>; VanLare, Paula <VanLare.Paula@epa.gov>; Adams, Darryl 
<Adams.Darryl@epa.gov> 

Subject: OP Policy Review - ORPM Office Director Approval Notification (SAN 6350 - Final / 
Administrator's Signature / Review #1 / R09 - 'Nevada - Visibility FIP Rescission for the Mohave 
Generating Station') 


Approval for Administrator's Signature: Final - 'Nevada - Visibility FIP Rescission for the Mohave 
Generating Station' 

This Policy Review is ready for OP Associate Administrator Approval. 

Link to Policy Review Documents G 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005540-00001 




To: Samantha Dravis[Dravis.Samantha@epamail.epa.gov]; Brittany 

Boien[Bolen. Brittany@epamaii.epa.gov] 

From: Microsoft Outlook 

Sent: Wed 10/11/2017 4:20:59 PM 

Subject: Undeliverable: RE: OP Policy Review - ORPM Office Director Approval Notification (SAN 
5809.1 - Final / OCIR Review pre-Signature / Review #1 / OW - 'Hypoxia Task Force Report to 
Congress') 

RE: OP Policy Review - ORPM Office Director Approval Notification (SAN 5809.1 - Final / OCIR Review 
pre-Signature / Review #1 / OW - 'Hypoxia Task Force Report to Congress') 



Your message couldn't be delivered to multiple recipients. 

The recipients weren't found at epamail.epa.gov. 


dravis.samantha Office 365 Recipients 

Action Required Recipients 


Unknown To address 

Couldn't deliver to the following recipients: 

Dravis.Samantha@epamail.epa.gov, Bolen.Brittany@epamail.epa.gov 

How to Fix It 

The address may be misspelled or may not exist. Try one or more of 

the following: 

• Send the message again following these steps: In Outlook, open 
this non-delivery report (NDR) and choose Send Again from the 
Report ribbon. In Outlook on the web, select this NDR, then select the 
link "To send this message again, click here." Then delete and retype 
the entire recipient address. If prompted with an Auto-Complete List 
suggestion don't select it. After typing the complete address, click 
Send. 

• Contact the recipient (by phone, for example) to check that the address 
exists and is correct. 



The recipient may have set up email forwarding to an incorrect 
address. Ask them to check that any forwarding they've set up is 
working correctly. 

Clear the recipient Auto-Complete List in Outlook or Outlook on the 
web by following the steps in this article: Fix email delivery issues for 
error code 5.1.10 in Office 365 , and then send the message again. 
Retype the entire recipient address before selecting Send. 


If the problem continues, forward this message to your email admin. If 
you're an email admin, refer to the More Info for Email Admins section 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005541-00001 











below. v;,;/'H 

Was this helpful? Send feedback to Microsoft . 


More Info for Email Admins 

Status code: 550 5.1.10 

This error occurs because the sender sent a message to an email address hosted by 
Office 365 but the address is incorrect or doesn't exist at the destination domain. The 
error is reported by the recipient domain's email server, but most often it must be fixed 
by the person who sent the message. If the steps in the How to Fix It section above 
don't fix the problem, and you're the email admin for the recipient, try one or more of the 
following: 

The email address exists and is correct - Confirm that the recipient address exists, is 
correct, and is accepting messages. 

Synchronize your directories - If you have a hybrid environment and are using 
directory synchronization make sure the recipient's email address is synced correctly in 
both Office 365 and in your on-premises directory. 

Errant forwarding rule - Check for forwarding rules that aren't behaving as expected. 
Forwarding can be set up by an admin via mail flow rules or mailbox forwarding address 
settings, or by the recipient via the Inbox Rules feature. 

Recipient has a valid license - Make sure the recipient has an Office 365 license 
assigned to them. The recipient's email admin can use the Office 365 admin center to 
assign a license (Users > Active Users > select the recipient > Assigned License > Edit). 

Mail flow settings and MX records are not correct - Misconfigured mail flow or MX 
record settings can cause this error. Check your Office 365 mail flow settings to make 
sure your domain and any mail flow connectors are set up correctly. Also, work with your 
domain registrar to make sure the MX records for your domain are configured correctly. 

For more information and additional tips to fix this issue, see Fix email delivery issues 
for error code 5,1.10 in Office 365. 


Original Message Details 

Created Date: 10/11/2017 4:20:57 PM 


Sender Address: dravis.samantha@epa.gov 

Recipient Address: Dravis.Samantha@epamail.epa.gov, 

Bolen.Brittany@epamail.epa.gov 

Subject: RE: OP Policy Review - ORPM Office Director Approval 

Notification (SAN 5809.1 - Final / OCIR Review pre-Signature / 
Review #1 / OW - 'Hypoxia Task Force Report to Congress') 

Error Details 


Reported error: 550 5.1.10 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipientNotFound; Recipient 

not found by SMTP address lookup 

DSN generated by: 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005541-00002 



MWHPR09MB1453.namprd09.prod.outlook.com 


Message Hops 

HOPTIME FROM TO WITH RELAY 

(UTC) TIME 

1 4°2o- 57 01| ^ WHPR09MB1469 .namprdCWV(tfHl?RflM®Wfi(§mamprd09^irbd.outlook.com * 

PM 

2 !°in^o 01 ^VVHPR09MB1469 .namprd(M\^Hi?RflM®W6{3mamprd(Miprododtj8M3IPca)cnver 1 sec 

PM : 58 (version=TLS 1 _2, 

cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_2f 

Original Message Headers 


Authentication.Results: epa.gov; dkim=none (message not signed) 

header.d=none;epa.gov; dmarc=none action=none header.from=epa.gov; 

R e c e i v e d.: f r om MWH P R 0 9 MB 14 6 9. n amp rd09.prod.outlook.c o m (10.17 3.5 0.19) by 


n md 


o 


>.nampr 


Server 


5.20.7 7.7 


.prod.ou11oo k.com (10.17 3.50.15) with Microso ft SMTP 
_ , ^ iS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_25 6_CBC_SHA33 4_P256) id 

11 Oct 2017 16:20:58 +0000 


version=TLSl 2, cipher=TLS ECDHE RSA WITH 


: e i v e d: f r om. MW H P R 0 9 MB 14 6 9. n amp rd09.prod.out 
14 6 9.namp rd 0 9.pr od.outlook.com ([10. 


look.com ( [ 10.17 3.50.19]) by 
173.50.19]) wi 


. 1 .UCI 


i id 


15.20.0077.020; V\ 


11 Oct 2017 16:20:57 +0000 

Content.Type: app1ication/ms-tnef; name="winmail 

C o n t e nt.T ran s fe r.En coding: binary 

Frc 
To: 


H 


From: "Dravis, Samantha” <dravis.samantha@epa.gov> 


O p 

..s' ' 


* n s r N I. c o 1 e " < Owe ns.Nicole@ ep ama :i 1. epa . gov>, S ama r 


,£.a 


cavis 




CD.rav.is . Samantna^epamaal. epa. gov> 

Brittany Bolen <Bolen. B r a. 11 a n y § ep ama i 1. epa. gov> 


I? rjr 


K e n n y, S h a n n o n " 


Kenny.Shannon @epa.gov>, "Kime, Robin" <Kime.Robin @ 


a. gov> , 


"Pritchard 




O 


Eileen" <Pr.itchard.. EileenOepa. gov>, , 

"Nickerson, Wi.lliam" <Nickerson.WilliamOepa.gov 


3 a r ah " < r e e s . s a r an \$ ep a . gov>, 


"Corral.es 


LCL 


a. r k 


f? 


< C o r r a 1 e s . Ma r 


a.gov>. 


n rs 


Curry, B r a dg a d < Cu r r y . B r a clg a d 


gov >, 




Johnson 


i? ^ 


i. ■ ■ < Jo n n s o n. An n u ep a. g ov>, 
d u ,d i e c t: RE : 0 P P o.].i c y Re v i e w 




r s e, 


D J:A 


beanne CNurse. j. ,ea nneisepa . gov> 

1PM Office Director Approva1 Notification 

58 0 9.1 Final / OCIR Review pre-Signature / Review #1 / OW * Hypoxia 

T a s k. F o r c e R e p o r t t o C o n g r ess 1 ) 

T h re a d..Top i c : O P P o 1 i c y Re v i ew - OR PM Off i ce Director Ap p r o v a 1 Notif icatio n 

(SAN 58 0 9.1 - Final / OCIR Review pre-Signature / Review #1 / OW . ? Hypoxia 

Task Force Report to Congress f ) 

Thread.Index: AQHTQqTYCSdsE/FN4USW117jvlgSbaLe11iQ 

D a t e: Wed, 11 O c t 2 017 16:20:57 +0000 
Message.ID: 

<MWH PR 0 9MB14 6 94 D 0 3 7 C 5 6 0 AE 6 E 7 OA6EE3E64AO0 MWH PRO 9MB14 6 9.namprd09.prod.outlook.com> 
References: COF5B2BF8FF.3F7DF3D6-ON852581B6.00547F56- 
852581B 6.0 0 5 4 8 0 F2 @ epamai1.epa.gov> 

In.Reply.To: COF5B2BF8FF.3F7DF3D6-ON852581B6.00547F56- 

852 581B 6.0 05 48 0 F 2 @ep amai1.ep a.gov> 

A c c e pt-L a n guage: e n.US 

C on t e n t - L a n gu a g e : e n.U S 

X-MS-Has-Attach: yes 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 

<MW H P R 0 9 MB14 6 9 4 D0 3 7 C5 6 0AE 6E7 0A 6EE 3E 6 4A0 @MWHPR0 9MB14 6 9.namprdO9.prod.outlook.com> 
MIME-Version: 1.0 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005541-00003 

































































































X.O rigin a tin g-1P: r2 6 2 0:117:5 010:19 4::d 017] 


X-MS-PublicTraffi< 


^ pi * 


Cl 


X.M i c r o s o f t - E x c h a n g e - D i a g n o s t i c s : 

1;MWHPRO 9MB14 69;35:EuEF5TgFP/7xjp5TTNVUkzYlptBnvLXvvzcyKSdBL6POTMHZOCqIu6j5eTUu.MkaOOt.wyE In 

X.MS-Exchange.Antispam-S RFA.Dia gno sties: S S0 S;S S 0R; 

vport:: 

"I q QiTi\7 « QtfT , QTQ • • nTD • T"NTO • QTT'D « « QPT « 

1 f b r v : b rv x f orb: , Li IK: x IN .b f b r K : ; b L, J.i: 


X-Forefront-Antispam-Rc 


Cl« QFT „ OPT co 
■.J 1... V # k J X V JL / y~J Vw/ ..U « 


1;SRVR:MWHPRO 9MB14 53;B:MWHPRO9 MB14 6 9 .namprdO9.prod.outlook.com;FPR:;SPF:None;LANG:en 


R e t u r n.P a t h: d r a v i s . s am a n t h a, 0 


>a. gov 

X MS O f fice 3 6 5 F i 1 terin g Co r r e1a tion-id: 401c69d2-c75e 4324-218 2-0 8 d510 c 4 0 e19 

X.M ic r o so ft.Antis p am: 

UriScan :;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID: (22001) (2017030254152) (2017052603199) (49563074) (2017 


X.M i c r o s o f t - E x c h a n g e -1) i a g n. o s t i c s : 

1; MWHPR0 9MB 1453; 3 : rXcDT2+aN4nS45Ss 1 x81r7G+8Fc7C+lbBZcIsvmNQ3/g0hf s/h. 1 eFhVCJp5iEt 

X.MS.TrafficTypeDiagnostic: MWHPRO9MB1453: 

X.Ex cha nge.Antisp am-Rep o r t-T e s t: 

UriScan: (141739891587465) (21748063052155) (229425074694992); 


X E x c h a n g e An t i s p am Rep o r t C FA T e s t: 

BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID: (100000700101) (100105000095) (100000701101) (10 0105300095) (1000 


a Z/Bls JO r1LTC+zgLihC PyNb4YuS dsz PuEY S a axYtAEu2 T Gx8 


X. M i c r o s o f t.E x c h a n g e.D i. a g n o s t i c s : 

1; MWH P R 0 9 MB 14 5 3; 4 : MNQ i x’ 

X .Mi.crosof t .Exchange-Diagnostics : 

1;MWHPRO9MB1453; 5 : 8xSziEsl9LC3m7klG8bpVNHUpHfl+MV3V0a6Ppf IUGfrkwl,26z//6wW4I5EQHw< 


Sp amDia gno sticOu tput: 1:0 

X.MS.Exchange.CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Oct 2017 16:20:57.8018 


rp r* 


X 


X 


X 


MS 


■ E x c h a, n g e C r o s s T e n a n t 


: -F romEntit vHe 


■MS.Exc 


■CrossTenant 


Hosted 


I d: 8 8b 3 7 8 b 3.67 4 8-4867-ac f 9-7 6 aacbe ca 6 


/ cl 


MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamp 


MWHPRO9MB1453 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005541-00004 




































































To: Owens, Nicole[Owens.Nicole@epa.gov]; Samantha 

Dravis[Dravis.Samantha@epamail.epa.gov] 

Cc: Brittany Bolen[Bolen.Brittany@epamail.epa.gov]; Kenny, Shannon[Kenny.Shannon@epa.gov]; 

Kime, Robin[Kime.Robin@epa.gov]; Pritchard, Eileen[Pritchard.Eileen@epa.gov]; Rees, 
Sarah[rees.sarah@epa.gov]; Nickerson, William[Nickerson.William@epa.gov]; Corraies, 

Mark[Corraies.Mark@epa.gov]; Curry, Bridgid[Curry.Bridgid@epa.gov]; Johnson, 
Ann[Johnson.Ann@epa.gov]; Nurse, Leanne[Nurse.Leanne@epa.gov] 

From: Dravis, Samantha 

Sent: Wed 10/11/2017 4:20:57 PM 

Subject: RE: OP Policy Review - ORPM Office Director Approval Notification (SAN 5809.1 - Final / 
OCIR Review pre-Signature / Review #1 / OW - 'Hypoxia Task Force Report to Congress') 


Approved 


From: Nicole Owens [mailto:Owens.Nicole@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 11:23 AM 

To: Samantha Dravis <Dravis.Samantha@epamail.epa.gov> 

Cc: Brittany Bolen <Bolen.Brittany@epamail.epa.gov>; Kenny, Shannon 
<Kenny.Shannon@epa.gov>; Kime, Robin <Kime.Robin@epa.gov>; Pritchard, Eileen 
<Pritchard.Eileen@epa.gov>; Rees, Sarah <rees.sarah@epa.gov>; Nickerson, William 
<Nickerson.William@epa.gov>; Corraies, Mark <Corrales.Mark@epa.gov>; Curry, Bridgid 
<Curry.Bridgid@epa.gov>; Johnson, Ann <Johnson.Ann@epa.gov>; Nurse, Leanne 
<Nurse.Leanne@epa.gov> 

Subject: OP Policy Review - ORPM Office Director Approval Notification (SAN 5809.1 - Final / 
OCIR Review pre-Signature / Review #1 / OW - 'Hypoxia Task Force Report to Congress') 


Approval for Administrator's Signature: Final - 'Hypoxia Task Force Report to Congress' 
This Policy Review is ready for OP Associate Administrator Approval. 

Link to Policy Review Documents G 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005542-00001 




To: Samantha Dravis[Dravis.Samantha@epamail.epa.gov]; Brittany 

BoienfBolen. Brittany@epamaii.epa.gov] 

From: Microsoft Outlook 

Sent: Wed 10/11/2017 4:20:43 PM 

Subject: Undeiiverable: RE: OP Policy Review - ORPM Office Director Approval Notification (SAN 6024 - 
Direct Final / Administrator's Signature / Review #1 / OCSPP - 'Voluntary Consensus Standards Update; 
Formaldehyde Emission Standards for Composite Wood Produc... 

RE: OP Policy Review - ORPM Office Director Approval Notification (SAN 6024 - Direct Final / 
Administrator's Signature / Review #1 / OCSPP - 'Voluntary Consensus Standards Update; 

Formaldehyde Emission Standards for Composite Wood Products') 



Your message couldn't be delivered to multiple recipients. 

The recipients weren't found at epamail.epa.gov. 


dravis.samantha Office 365 Recipients 

Action Required Recipients 

Unknown To address 

Couldn't deliver to the following recipients: 

Dravis.Samantha@epamail.epa.gov, Bolen.Brittany@epamail.epa.gov 

How to Fix It 

The address may be misspelled or may not exist. Try one or more of 

the following: 

• Send the message again following these steps: In Outlook, open 
this non-delivery report (NDR) and choose Send Again from the 
Report ribbon. In Outlook on the web, select this NDR, then select the 
link "To send this message again, click here." Then delete and retype 
the entire recipient address. If prompted with an Auto-Complete List 
suggestion don't select it. After typing the complete address, click 
Send. 

• Contact the recipient (by phone, for example) to check that the address 
exists and is correct. 

• The recipient may have set up email forwarding to an incorrect 
address. Ask them to check that any forwarding they've set up is 
working correctly. 

• Clear the recipient Auto-Complete List in Outlook or Outlook on the 
web by following the steps in this article: Fix email delivery issues for 
error code 5.1.10 in Office 365 , and then send the message again. 
Retype the entire recipient address before selecting Send. 

If the problem continues, forward this message to your email admin. If 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005543-00001 










you're an email admin, refer to the More Info for Email Admins section 
below. 

Was this helpful? Send feedback to Microsoft . 


More Info for Email Admins 

Status code: 550 5.1.10 

This error occurs because the sender sent a message to an email address hosted by 
Office 365 but the address is incorrect or doesn't exist at the destination domain. The 
error is reported by the recipient domain's email server, but most often it must be fixed 
by the person who sent the message. If the steps in the How to Fix It section above 
don’t fix the problem, and you're the email admin for the recipient, try one or more of the 
following: 

The email address exists and is correct - Confirm that the recipient address exists, is 
correct, and is accepting messages. 

Synchronize your directories - If you have a hybrid environment and are using 
directory synchronization make sure the recipient's email address is synced correctly in 
both Office 365 and in your on-premises directory. 

Errant forwarding rule - Check for forwarding rules that aren't behaving as expected. 
Forwarding can be set up by an admin via mail flow rules or mailbox forwarding address 
settings, or by the recipient via the Inbox Rules feature. 

Recipient has a valid license - Make sure the recipient has an Office 365 license 
assigned to them. The recipient's email admin can use the Office 365 admin center to 
assign a license (Users > Active Users > select the recipient > Assigned License > Edit). 

Mail flow settings and MX records are not correct - Misconfigured mail flow or MX 
record settings can cause this error. Check your Office 365 mail flow settings to make 
sure your domain and any mail flow connectors are set up correctly. Also, work with your 
domain registrar to make sure the MX records for your domain are configured correctly. 

For more information and additional tips to fix this issue, see Fix email delivery issues 
for error code 5.1.10 in Office 365. 


Original Message Details 

Created Date: 10/11/2017 4:20:41 PM 


Sender Address: dravis.samantha@epa.gov 

Recipient Address: Dravis.Samantha@epamail.epa.gov, 

Bolen.Brittany@epamail.epa.gov 

Subject: RE: OP Policy Review - ORPM Office Director Approval 

Notification (SAN 6024 - Direct Final / Administrator's 
Signature / Review #1 / OCSPP - 'Voluntary Consensus 
Standards Update; Formaldehyde Emission Standards for 
Composite Wood Products') 

Error Details 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005543-00002 


























Reported error: 

DSN generated by: 


550 5.1.10 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipientNotFound; Recipient 
not found by SMTP address lookup 

MWHPR09MB1486.namprd09.prod.outlook.com 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005543-00003 



Message Hops 


HOPTIME FROM 

iro 

WITH 

RELAY 

(UTC) 



TIME 


1 4! > 2o!42 01| ^ W H p R 09 MB1469.namprdllBOfhWROfiUttll489»nBmprdBftprod.outlook.com 1 sec 

PM 


2 4-20^42^ 1 ^'^HPR09WB1469.namprdfflBflpil€'iR6aii6dl4a8ki , namprdfflBqn3»hfliSM5R.Sourer 
pm (vers ion=TLS 1 _2, 

cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_25( 


Original Message Headers 


Authentication.Results: epa.gov; dkim=none (message not sign* 

h e a cl e r . ci=n o n e; e p a . g o v; dm a r c=none actio n=n o n e h e a d e r . f r o m= e p a. g o v; 

Recei.ved.: from MWHPR09MB 14 6 9 .namprd09.prod.outlook.com (10.173.50.19) hy 
MWH P R 0 9 MB14 8 6 .n amprd0 9.p r od.ou11oo k.com (10.17 3.50.13 6) with Mic r o s o f t SMT P 
Server (version=TLSl 2, cipher=TLS ECDHE RSA WITH AES 256 CBC SHA384 P256) id 
15.20.77.7; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 16:20742 +0000 
R e c e i v e d.: f r om. MW H P R. 0 9 MB 14 6 9 . n amp rd09.prod.outlook.c om ( [ 10.17 3.50.19 ] ) 
MWHPR09MB1469.namprd09.prod.outlook.com ( [10.173.50.19]) with mapi id 


15.20.0 0 7 7.0 2 


11 Oct 2017 16:20 


+ 0000 


Content.Type : application/ms-tnef; name="winmai 

C o n t e nt.T r an s fe r.Encodin g: binary 


ff 


From: "Dravis, Samantha" <dravis.samantha@epa.gov> 


ioa. gov> 


T o : " Owe n s , N i c o 1 e " < Owe n s.NicoleO epama i .1.... ep a . g ov>, S ama n 

< D r a v i s . S am a n t h a @ e p am a i ] 

C C: B r i 11 a n y B o 1 e n < B o 1 e n . B r i t 

"Pritchard 


ia 


r:av.i.s 





Shannon'' 


Ke n n y. S h a n n o n @ ep a . g o v>, ff K i me , Rob in" < K i me . Rob i n @ ep a . g ov> 


Erie e n <P r i tcha rd.Eileen@epa.gov> 


Sarah" < r ee s.s a r ah@epa.gov>, 


ff 


Nickerson, Wi11iam" <Nickerson.Wi 


ff e .r 


C o r r a 1 e s , M a r k " 


<Corrales 


pa.gov> , Curry, B ridgid <Cur r y.Bridgid@ ep a.gov>, 


ff 


Peffers 


M e 1." < P e f f e r s . M e 1 @ e p a . g o v > , 

e,,w■■■■■, ec p . re : op poi j_ c y p ev i ew 


Jutras, Nathaniel 


ORPM Office Di 

(SAN 6024 Direc:t Fina 1 / Administrator ! s Si 

* Voluntary Consensus Standards Update; Formaldehyde Emission Standards foi 
Composite Wood Products *) 


< Ju t r a s.Natha nie 1 @ep a .g ov > 
: e c to r Appr ova1 No tific ation 
lature / Review #1 / OCSPP . 


iread.Topic: OP Policy Review - ORPM Office Director Approval Notification 

(SAN 6024 . Direct Final / Administrator's Signature / Review #1 / OCSPP . 

'Voluntary Consensus Standards Update; Formaldehyde Emission Standards for 
Composite Wood Products f ) 

Thread.Index: AQHTQqTydJoy4GEWwOGz 0AH1ZBOpNqLe1HVQ 

11 Oct 2017 16:20:41 +0000 


Date: 

Message-ID: 

<MWHPR.O9MB1469A8A3B44A39E9431BD7DBE64AO0MWHPRO9MB14 69.namprdO9.prod. outlook .com> 
Re f e r e n ce s : <OF 037 4 0 0 67.3 3 4 8 512 4 •••-• ON 8 5 2 5 81B 6.0 0 5 4 8 E 2 9 - 
852581B 6.0 0 5 4 8 F 9 3 @ ep ama i .1. epa . go v> 

In.Reply--To : COF0374OO67.33485124 -ON852581B6.00548E29- 

85258 IB6.0 0 54 8F93 Oeparnai. .1 . epa . gov> 

A c c e p t - L a n g u a q e : e n.U S 

C o n t e n t - L a n g u a g e : e n - U S 

X M S. H a s - A11 a c h : y e s 

X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 

<MWHPR09MB14 6 9A8A3B4 4A3 9E 9 4 31BD7DBE 6 4A0 0MWHPRO9MB1 46 9 .namprdO 9 .prod.outlook.com> 
MIME.Version: 1.0 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005543-00004 














































































































X.O rigina ting-1P: [2620:117:5 010 : 19 4 : :d 0171 

X.M S.P u b ]..i c T r a f f i c T y p e : E in a i 1. 

X.Mic r os o f t-Exchan g e-Dia gn o s tic s : 

1;MWHPRO9MB1 4 69; 35 : DHYIi6PKRBF/aUgDTIOkTssdjOsz8S2qqhj LeAc/ozKPmuuaSVrD8NQdF48UX.66mF9gy 1R.2 

X. M S - E x c h a n g e. An t i s p am - S R. FA.D i a g n o sties: S S 0 S; S S 0 R ; 

X.Fo r e f r o n t.Antispam.Repo r t: 

S FV: S KI; S C L : -1; S FV: S KI; S F S : ; DIR: INB; S F P: ; S C L: - 
1;SRVR:MWHPRO 9MB14 8 6;H:MWHPRO 9MB14 6 9.namprdO 9.prod.outlook.com;FPR:;SPF:None;LANG:en; 

R e t u r n.P a t h: d r a v i s . s am a n t h a, @ e p a . g o v 

X.MS.O f fice 3 6 5.F i.1 terin g.Co r r e1a tion-id: 34be8722-b 407-4ea2-c350-0 8 d510 c 4 0 4 a 2 

X.Mic r o s o ft.Antis p am: 

UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID: (22001) (2017030254152) (2017052603199) (49563074) <2017i 


■ s 


X.M i c r o s o f t - E x c h a, n g e - D i a g n o s t i c 

1; MWHPRO 9MB14 8 6; 3 : 90UBEX.zOeG1 yVsg902 J'uf 0gT0 JqY4puUVTGQeub+QnSvV0 /ooc j Sk.vm.rn 6 xH 5 TO< 


X.MS.TrafficTypeDiagnostLc: MWHPRO9MB1486: 

X.E x c h a n g e.An t i. s p am.R e p o r t - T e s t: 

UriScan: (141739891587465) (100405760836317) (21748063052155) (22 9425074 694 992); 

X.E x c h a n g e.An t i. s p am.Rep o r t - C FA- Test: 

BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID: (100000700101) (100105000095) (10 0 0 0 0701101) (100105300095) (1000! 
X.M i c r o s o f t.E x c h a n g e.D i a g n o s t i c s : 

1;MWHPRO 9MB14 8 6;4:NWRaSZSiJ/Pj drmM3f7Z3ySXj S2bZINezAnXVEHn8 j rvlZSufhChkkfxXj wVCri 
X.M i. c i; o s o f t.E x c h a n g e - D i a g n o s t i c s : 

1;MWHPRO9MB1486;5:4g7zKJ/ZqZYyQJcp75BlfRFGRllX5ryEBV19yTvPwD9+7Y8+GZfR21EKs/RjRa. 


S p amDiagno s ticOutput: 1:0 

X.MS.Exchange.CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Oct 2017 16:20:41.8797 


171 r*- 


x 


x 


X 


MS 


■ E x c h a n g e.C r o s s T e n a n t 


: -F romEntit vHe. 


■MS.Exc 


■CrossTenant 


Hosted 


I d: 8 8b 3 7 8 b 3.67 4 8-4867-ac f 9-7 6 aacbe ca 6 a7 


■ M S.E x c h a n g e.T r a n s p o r t - C r o s s T e n a n t H e a d e r s S t amp 


MWHPRO9 MB14 86 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005543-00005 






































































To: Owens, Nicole[Owens.Nicole@epa.gov]; Samantha 

Dravis[Dravis.Samantha@epamail.epa.gov] 

Cc: Brittany Bolen[Bolen.Brittany@epamail.epa.gov]; Kenny, Shannon[Kenny.Shannon@epa.gov]; 

Kime, Robin[Kime.Robin@epa.gov]; Pritchard, Eileen[Pritchard.Eileen@epa.gov]; Rees, 
Sarah[rees.sarah@epa.gov]; Nickerson, William[Nickerson.William@epa.gov]; Corraies, 

Mark[Corrales.Mark@epa.gov]; Curry, Bridgid[Curry.Bridgid@epa.gov]; Peffers, 

Mel[Peffers.Mel@epa.gov]; Jutras, Nathaniei[Jutras.Nathaniei@epa.gov] 

From: Dravis, Samantha 

Sent: Wed 10/11/2017 4:20:41 PM 

Subject: RE: OP Policy Review - ORPM Office Director Approval Notification (SAN 6024 - Direct Final / 
Administrator's Signature / Review #1 / OCSPP - 'Voluntary Consensus Standards Update; 

Formaldehyde Emission Standards for Composite Wood Products') 


Approved 


From: Nicole Owens [mailto:Owens.Nicole@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 11:24 AM 

To: Samantha Dravis <Dravis.Samantha@epamail.epa.gov> 

Cc: Brittany Bolen <Bolen.Brittany@epamail.epa.gov>; Kenny, Shannon 
<Kenny.Shannon@epa.gov>; Kime, Robin <Kime.Robin@epa.gov>; Pritchard, Eileen 
<Pritchard.Eileen@epa.gov>; Rees, Sarah <rees.sarah@epa.gov>; Nickerson, William 
<Nickerson.William@epa.gov>; Corraies, Mark <Corrales.Mark@epa.gov>; Curry, Bridgid 
<Curry.Bridgid@epa.gov>; Peffers, Mel <Peffers.Mel@epa.gov>; Jutras, Nathaniel 
<Jutras.Nathaniel@epa.gov> 

Subject: OP Policy Review - ORPM Office Director Approval Notification (SAN 6024 - Direct 
Final / Administrator's Signature / Review #1 / OCSPP - 'Voluntary Consensus Standards 
Update; Formaldehyde Emission Standards for Composite Wood Products') 


Approval for Administrator's Signature: Direct Final - 'Voluntary Consensus Standards Update; 
Formaldehyde Emission Standards for Composite Wood Products' 

This Policy Review is ready for OP Associate Administrator Approval. 

Link to Policy Review Documents G 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005544-00001 




To: Samantha Dravis[Dravis.Samantha@epamail.epa.gov]; Brittany 

Bolen[Bolen. Brittany@epamaii.epa.gov] 

From: Microsoft Outlook 

Sent: Wed 10/11/2017 4:20:36 PM 

Subject: Undeliverable: RE: OP Policy Review - ORPM Office Director Approval Notification (SAN 6024 - 
NPRM / Administrator's Signature / Review #1 / OCSPP - 'Voluntary Consensus Standards Update; 
Formaldehyde Emission Standards for Composite Wood Products') 

RE: OP Policy Review - ORPM Office Director Approval Notification (SAN 6024 - NPRM / Administrator's 
Signature / Review #1 / OCSPP - 'Voluntary Consensus Standards Update; Formaldehyde Emission 
Standards for Composite Wood Products') 



Your message couldn't be delivered to multiple recipients. 

The recipients weren't found at epamail.epa.gov. 


dravis.samantha Office 365 Recipients 

Action Required Recipients 

Unknown To address 

Couldn't deliver to the following recipients: 

Dravis.Samantha@epamail.epa.gov, Bolen.Brittany@epamail.epa.gov 

How to Fix It 

The address may be misspelled or may not exist. Try one or more of 

the following: 

• Send the message again following these steps: In Outlook, open 
this non-delivery report (NDR) and choose Send Again from the 
Report ribbon. In Outlook on the web, select this NDR, then select the 
link "To send this message again, click here." Then delete and retype 
the entire recipient address. If prompted with an Auto-Complete List 
suggestion don't select it. After typing the complete address, click 
Send. 

• Contact the recipient (by phone, for example) to check that the address 
exists and is correct. 

• The recipient may have set up email forwarding to an incorrect 
address. Ask them to check that any forwarding they've set up is 
working correctly. 

• Clear the recipient Auto-Complete List in Outlook or Outlook on the 
web by following the steps in this article: Fix email delivery issues for 
error code 5.1.10 in Office 365 , and then send the message again. 
Retype the entire recipient address before selecting Send. 

If the problem continues, forward this message to your email admin. If 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005545-00001 









you're an email admin, refer to the More Info for Email Admins section 
below. 

Was this helpful? Send feedback to Microsoft . 


More Info for Email Admins 

Status code: 550 5.1.10 

This error occurs because the sender sent a message to an email address hosted by 
Office 365 but the address is incorrect or doesn't exist at the destination domain. The 
error is reported by the recipient domain's email server, but most often it must be fixed 
by the person who sent the message. If the steps in the How to Fix It section above 
don’t fix the problem, and you're the email admin for the recipient, try one or more of the 
following: 

The email address exists and is correct - Confirm that the recipient address exists, is 
correct, and is accepting messages. 

Synchronize your directories - If you have a hybrid environment and are using 
directory synchronization make sure the recipient's email address is synced correctly in 
both Office 365 and in your on-premises directory. 

Errant forwarding rule - Check for forwarding rules that aren't behaving as expected. 
Forwarding can be set up by an admin via mail flow rules or mailbox forwarding address 
settings, or by the recipient via the Inbox Rules feature. 

Recipient has a valid license - Make sure the recipient has an Office 365 license 
assigned to them. The recipient's email admin can use the Office 365 admin center to 
assign a license (Users > Active Users > select the recipient > Assigned License > Edit). 

Mail flow settings and MX records are not correct - Misconfigured mail flow or MX 
record settings can cause this error. Check your Office 365 mail flow settings to make 
sure your domain and any mail flow connectors are set up correctly. Also, work with your 
domain registrar to make sure the MX records for your domain are configured correctly. 

For more information and additional tips to fix this issue, see Fix email delivery issues 
for error code 5.1.10 in Office 365. 


Original Message Details 

Created Date: 10/11/2017 4:20:34 PM 


Sender Address: dravis.samantha@epa.gov 

Recipient Address: Dravis.Samantha@epamail.epa.gov, 

Bolen.Brittany@epamail.epa.gov 

Subject: RE: OP Policy Review - ORPM Office Director Approval 

Notification (SAN 6024 - NPRM / Administrator's Signature / 
Review #1 / OCSPP - 'Voluntary Consensus Standards Update; 
Formaldehyde Emission Standards for Composite Wood 
Products') 

Error Details 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005545-00002 


























Reported error: 

DSN generated by: 


550 5.1.10 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipientNotFound; Recipient 
not found by SMTP address lookup 

MWHPR09MB1488.namprd09.prod.outlook.com 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005545-00003 



Message Hops 

HOPTIME FROM TO WITH RELAY 

(UTC) TIME 

1 4°2o- 34 01| ^ WHPR09MB1469 .namprdCra\(tfHl?RflM®Wfi(§mamprd09^rbd.outlook.com * 

PM 

2 l°in^ 01 ^WHPR09MB1469 .namprd(MV^HRRflM®Wfitoamprd(raiprododtj8M3IPca)crver 2 sec 

PM* (vers ion=TLS 1 _2, 

cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_2J 

Original Message Headers 


Ailthent icat i.on Resu 11s : epa. gov; dkim=none (rnes sage not sign< 

header . d=none; epa. gov; dinarc=none action=none header . f rom=epa. gov; 

R e c e i v e d.: f r orn MW H P R 0 9 MB 14 6 9 . n amp rd09.prod.out 1 o o k. c o rn (10.173.50.19) b y 
MW H P R 0 9 MB 14 8 8 . n a mp r d 0 9 . p r o d . o u 11. ook.com (10.173.50.13 8) w i t h M i c r o s o f t S M T P 
Server <version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_25 6_CRC_SHA38 4_P256) id 
15.20.77.7; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 16:20:36 +0000 

:eived.: f rom MWHPR0 9MB 14 6 9 . namprdO 9 . prod. outlook.. corn. ( [ 10.17 3.50.19 ] ) by 
MWHPRO 9 MB14 69.namprdO9.prod.outlook.com. ([10.173.50.19]) wi 


i la 


15.20.0077.020; 

C o n t e n t.T y p e : app .1.i c a t i o n / m s -1: 

Cont:ent.Trans f er.Encoding : binary 


11 Oct 2017 16:20:34 +0000 


name : 


ft 


winmai 


ft 


From: "Dravis, Samantha” <dravis.samantha@epa.gov> 
To: 


ft 


*n s, Ni. co 1 e ” <Owen s . Ni co 1 e @ epama i 1. ep a . gov>, S ama n tha 


O jf 


cavis 


r"< r-< . 

OS 


CDravis . S ainan t: h. a @ ep ama i. 1. epa. gov> 

B ri11 a n y B o1e n <Bo1en.B ri11 any@ epamai1.epa.gov> 


ft Tjr 


K e n n y, S h a n n o n " 


Ke nny.Sha n n o n @ ep a . gov> , " K i me , Robin" <Kime. Rob i n @ 


ip a . gov> , 


"Pritchard 


S i 1 e e n " < P r i. t c h a r d. E i 1 e e n @ e p a . g o v > 


-n 


, Sarah” < r e e s.s a r a n w 


. CFOV> , 


ft 


Niekerson, Wi11iam" <Nickerson.WiHiam@epa.gov> 


<Corrales 


"Corrales, 


:>a . gov>, "Curry, Br idgid" <Cur r y. Br idgid@ 


Mark" 

(K)V> r 


ft 


Peffers 


M e 1 < P e f f e r s . M e. 1 @ 


S 


ect: 


> i?. 

.? os 


gov> , 


it 


0 P P o 1 i c y R e v i e w 


:ras, 


fa 


I 


aniei" < Jut r a s . Nathan i e .1 @ ep a. go v> 
. c e Dire c t o r Appr ova1 Notific ation 


ORPM 

(SAN 602 4 NPRM / Administrator 1 s Signature / Review #1 / OCSPP *Voluntary 

Consensus Standards Update; Formaldehyde Emission Standards for Composite 
Wood Products ? ) 

iread.Topic: OP Policy Review . ORPM Office Director Approval Notification 

(SAN 602 4 NPRM / Administrator 1 s Signature / Review #1 / OCSPP * Voluntary 

Consensus Standards Update; Formaldehyde Emission Standards for Composite 
Wood Products * ) 

Thread.Index: AQHTQqUFh/KKeVWifkS2eVLe3rstuqI,elGoQ 

Dat e: Wed, 11 O c t 2 017 16:20:34 +0000 
Message-ID: 

<MWHPR0 9MB14 6973E37E6ED4A1B1D444DCE64AO0MWHPRO9MB1469.namprd0 9.prod.outlook.com> 
Ref erences: <OF4458C4 66 .C0881944-ON852581B6.005 4 9AB8- 
852581B 6.0 0 5 4 9 C 2 9 @epamai1.ep a.gov> 

In.Reply-To: COF4458C466.C0881944-ON852581B6.00549AB8- 

8 5 2 5 8 B 6 0 0 5 4 9 C 2 9 @ e pain a i 1. ep a . go v> 

A c c e p t - L a n g u a q e : e n.U S 

C o n t e n t - L a n g u a g e : e n.U S 

X-MS.Has-Att a ch: yes 

X - M S.T N E1 1 .C o r r e 1 a t o r : 

<MWH PR 0 9MB146973E37E6ED4.A 1B1D 4 4 4 DCE 6 4 A 0 @ MWH PR 0 9MB14 6 9. namprdO 9 . prod. outlook . com> 
MIME.Version: 1.0 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005545-00004 























































































































X.O rigina tin g-1P: [ 2 62 0:117:5 0 

X .MS. Pub].i cT ra f f i cType: 


194::dO17 I 


H.Tna:!. l 


X.Mi c r o s o f t - E x ch a n g e - D i a g n o s t i c s 


1;MWHPR 0 9 MB14 6 9;3 5:iiOIP Z cIk SN Ft 


? J'h t JuwV 15 u i 1 r W qH 3 c d P z t G JABWNMe c 8 Q 3 j A+h n CCnv 


X.MS-Exchange- An t i sp am -S RFA-Dia gn o sties: S S0 S;S S 0R 


X.Fore i 


"I c 


sport: 


S FV: S KI; S C L : -1; S FV: S KI; S F S : ; DIR: INB; S F P : ; S C L: - 
1;SRVR:MWHPRO 9MB14 8 8;H:MWHPRO 9 MB14 6 9. namprdO 9 .prod.outlook.com;FPR:;SPF:None;LANG:en 


R e t u r n . P a t h: d r a v i s . s am a n t h a, @ e p a. g o v 

X.MS.O f fice 3 6 5.F i.1 terin g.Co r r e1a tio n-1d: 3bccl8c4-39d4 .4a36-40c7-0 8 d510 c 4 0 0 5 5 

X . M ic r o so ft.Antis p am; 

UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID: (22001) (2017030254152) (2 017 052 60319 9) (49563074) (2017 


X.MI c r o s o f t - E x c h a n g e - D i a g n o s t i c s : 

1;MWHPRO 9 MB148 8;3:W6eNUDAgymYm01aBezPAN3fRnCDbQ 4 uoCRe15 xA 9 S npfL 5 v1xkNhGo T a cRE+a 6 

X.MS.TrafficTypeDiagnost i.c: MWHPRO9MB1488 : 

X.E x c h a n g e.An t i. s p am.R e p o r t - T e s t: 

UriScan: (141739891587465) (1004057 60836317) (21748063052155) (229425074694992); 

X Ex change An tispam Rep o r t CFA T e s t: 

BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID: (10 0 0 0 0700101) (100105000095) (100000701101) (100105300095) (1000! 
X.M i c r o s o f t . E x c han g e. D i a g n o s t i c s : 

MWHPRO9MB14 8 8;4:UE T t qS 9 qnpn 21W 0 Kwa Lb 9WZ v15 E 3RdKUFN 81nxMX 7 HpUt GpWiZ a 7 w+EuT9wzgw< 


...i... f 


'ZkGpI 4 f AQWJ8 9yZBEG97 8 8 zhf NFm2PZMZbx/'VcmZXqR13Lf L- 


X .M i. c r o s o f t.E x c h a n g e: - D i a g n o s t i c s : 

1;MWHPRO 9MB148 8;5:jpBcySzunzr 
S p amDiagno s 11cOutput: 1:0 

X.MS.Exchange.CrossTenant.OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Oct 2017 16:20:34.6764 


i~P r* 


x 


X 


X 


' O 


3.E x ch a, n g e.C r o s s T e n a n t.F r omE ntityHe 


Hosted 


■MS.Exc 


■ C r o s s T e n an t -.Id: 8 8 b 3 7 8 b 3.6748.4867-acf9.7 6 aa cbe ca 6 a 7 


■ M S.E x c h a n g e.T r a n s p o r t - C r o s s T e n a n t H e a d e r s S t amp 


MWHPRO 9 MB14 8 8 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005545-00005 



































































To: Owens, Nicole[Owens.Nicole@epa.gov]; Samantha 

Dravis[Dravis.Samantha@epamail.epa.gov] 

Cc: Brittany Bolen[Bolen.Brittany@epamail.epa.gov]; Kenny, Shannon[Kenny.Shannon@epa.gov]; 

Kime, Robin[Kime.Robin@epa.gov]; Pritchard, Eileen[Pritchard.Eileen@epa.gov]; Rees, 
Sarah[rees.sarah@epa.gov]; Nickerson, William[Nickerson.William@epa.gov]; Corraies, 

Mark[Corrales.Mark@epa.gov]; Curry, Bridgid[Curry.Bridgid@epa.gov]; Peffers, 

Mel[Peffers.Mel@epa.gov]; Jutras, Nathaniei[Jutras.Nathaniei@epa.gov] 

From: Dravis, Samantha 

Sent: Wed 10/11/2017 4:20:34 PM 

Subject: RE: OP Policy Review - ORPM Office Director Approval Notification (SAN 6024 - NPRM / 
Administrator's Signature / Review #1 / OCSPP - 'Voluntary Consensus Standards Update; 

Formaldehyde Emission Standards for Composite Wood Products') 


Approved 


From: Nicole Owens [mailto:Owens.Nicole@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 11:24 AM 

To: Samantha Dravis <Dravis.Samantha@epamail.epa.gov> 

Cc: Brittany Bolen <Bolen.Brittany@epamail.epa.gov>; Kenny, Shannon 
<Kenny.Shannon@epa.gov>; Kime, Robin <Kime.Robin@epa.gov>; Pritchard, Eileen 
<Pritchard.Eileen@epa.gov>; Rees, Sarah <rees.sarah@epa.gov>; Nickerson, William 
<Nickerson.William@epa.gov>; Corraies, Mark <Corrales.Mark@epa.gov>; Curry, Bridgid 
<Curry.Bridgid@epa.gov>; Peffers, Mel <Peffers.Mel@epa.gov>; Jutras, Nathaniel 
<Jutras.Nathaniel@epa.gov> 

Subject: OP Policy Review - ORPM Office Director Approval Notification (SAN 6024 - NPRM / 
Administrator's Signature / Review #1 / OCSPP - 'Voluntary Consensus Standards Update; 
Formaldehyde Emission Standards for Composite Wood Products') 


Approval for Administrator's Signature: NPRM - 'Voluntary Consensus Standards Update; Formaldehyde 
Emission Standards for Composite Wood Products' 

This Policy Review is ready for OP Associate Administrator Approval. 

Link to Policy Review Documents G 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005546-00001 




To: Samantha Dravis[Dravis.Samantha@epamail.epa.gov]; Brittany 

Bolen[Bolen. Brittany@epamaii.epa.gov] 

From: Microsoft Outlook 

Sent: Tue 9/26/2017 6:01:43 PM 

Subject: Undeiiverabie: Re: OP Policy Review - ORPM Office Director Approval Notification (SAN 6250 - 
Final / Administrator's Signature / Review #1 / R09 - 'Coronado Generating Station Regional Haze') 

Re: OP Policy Review - ORPM Office Director Approval Notification (SAN 6250 - Final / Administrator's 
Signature / Review #1 / R09 - 'Coronado Generating Station Regional Haze’) 



Your message couldn't be delivered to multiple recipients. 

The recipients weren't found at epamail.epa.gov. 


dravis.samantha Office 365 Recipients 

Action Required Recipients 


Unknown To address 

Couldn't deliver to the following recipients: 

Dravis.Samantha@epamail.epa.gov, Bolen.Brittany@epamail.epa.gov 


The address may be misspelled or may not exist. Try one or more of 
the following: 

• Send the message again following these steps: In Outlook, open 
this non-delivery report (NDR) and choose Send Again from the 
Report ribbon. In Outlook on the web, select this NDR, then select the 
link "To send this message again, click here." Then delete and retype 
the entire recipient address. If prompted with an Auto-Complete List 
suggestion don't select it. After typing the complete address, click 
Send. 

• Contact the recipient (by phone, for example) to check that the address 
exists and is correct. 


• The recipient may have set up email forwarding to an incorrect 
address. Ask them to check that any forwarding they've set up is 
working correctly. 

• Clear the recipient Auto-Complete List in Outlook or Outlook on the 
web by following the steps in this article: Fix email delivery issues for 
error code 5.1.10 in Office 365 , and then send the message again. 
Retype the entire recipient address before selecting Send. 


If the problem continues, forward this message to your email admin. If 
you’re an email admin, refer to the More Info for Email Admins section 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005547-00001 













below. v;,;/'H 

Was this helpful? Send feedback to Microsoft . 


More Info for Email Admins 

Status code: 550 5.1.10 

This error occurs because the sender sent a message to an email address hosted by 
Office 365 but the address is incorrect or doesn't exist at the destination domain. The 
error is reported by the recipient domain's email server, but most often it must be fixed 
by the person who sent the message. If the steps in the How to Fix It section above 
don't fix the problem, and you're the email admin for the recipient, try one or more of the 
following: 

The email address exists and is correct - Confirm that the recipient address exists, is 
correct, and is accepting messages. 

Synchronize your directories - If you have a hybrid environment and are using 
directory synchronization make sure the recipient's email address is synced correctly in 
both Office 365 and in your on-premises directory. 

Errant forwarding rule - Check for forwarding rules that aren't behaving as expected. 
Forwarding can be set up by an admin via mail flow rules or mailbox forwarding address 
settings, or by the recipient via the Inbox Rules feature. 

Recipient has a valid license - Make sure the recipient has an Office 365 license 
assigned to them. The recipient's email admin can use the Office 365 admin center to 
assign a license (Users > Active Users > select the recipient > Assigned License > Edit). 

Mail flow settings and MX records are not correct - Misconfigured mail flow or MX 
record settings can cause this error. Check your Office 365 mail flow settings to make 
sure your domain and any mail flow connectors are set up correctly. Also, work with your 
domain registrar to make sure the MX records for your domain are configured correctly. 

For more information and additional tips to fix this issue, see Fix email delivery issues 
for error code 5,1.10 in Office 365. 


Original Message Details 

Created Date: 9/26/2017 6:01:41 PM 


Sender Address: 
Recipient Address: 

Subject: 


Error Details 

Reported error: 


dravis.samantha@epa.gov 

Dravis.Samantha@epamail.epa.gov, 

Bolen.Brittany@epamail.epa.gov 

Re: OP Policy Review - ORPM Office Director Approval 
Notification (SAN 6250 - Final / Administrator's Signature / 
Review #1 / R09 - 'Coronado Generating Station Regional 
Haze') 

550 5.1.10 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipientNotFound; Recipient 
not found by SMTP address lookup 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005547-00002 



DSN generated by: 


Message Hops 

HOFTIME FROM TO WITH 

(UTC) 

1 6^01^4^ 7 ^ N6PR09MB1460 ' namprd0 ®^^^ l ^ , ^^^ mam ^ r ^^^^^' OU ^ OO ^' COm 


PM 

9/26/2017. 
6:01:42 
PM 


RELAY 

TIME 


1 sec 


BN6PR09MB1460.namprd0£f)k6tRRfldlll&4«1^5mamprcl09i4DiraE^o6tBfidfrJ^(SBrver 

(version=TLS1_2, 

cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_25 


Original Message Headers 


Authentication.Results: epa.gov; dkim=none (message not signed) 

header.d=none;epa.gov; dmarc=none action=none header.from=epa.gov; 

Received: from BN6PRO9MB1460 .namprdO9.prod.outlook.com (10.173.202.136) by 
BN6PR.09MB1475 .namprdO9 .prod, outlook, com (10.173.202.139) with Microsof t SI 
Server (version=TLSl 2, cipher=TLS ECDHE RSA WITH AES 256 CBC SHA384 P256) id 
15.20.77.7; Tue f 26 Sep 2017 18:01:42 +0000 
Re c e i ve d.: f r om BN 6 PR 0 9MB14 60 . n amp rd09.prod.outlook.c om ( [ 10.173.202.13 6 ] ) 

BN6PR09MB14 60.namprdO9.prod.outlook.com ( [ 10.173.202.136]) with rru 
15.20.0077.011; Tue r 26 Sep 2017 18:01:41 +0000 

Content.Type : appl.i cat ion/ ms-tnef; name= r, winmail. dat" 

C o n t ent.T r ans f er.En coding: binary 


i id 


Er 

To 


rom: "D r avis f dc 


TT 

"Ree 


* Q 

f 


° ^mantha 1 ’ 
Sarah." 


r* r* 

Ax Ax 


Samantha Dravis , Brittany Bolen 


r 

TT TT 


Kirne 


r Shannon" , 

, ,..,obin" , 

" N i c k. e r s o n, W i 1.1 i am " , 

IT 

f 

HA, T'.T 4 ^ ~\ _ TT TIT 


“CL 


i * "1 _ 5 

iiileen 


"Co r r a1e s, Ma r k 


Pritc 

m' 

Curry, bnagia 


j it 


Owens, Nicole 


, VanLare, 


Pau.La 


TT 


TT 


Ac 


Sub.iect: Re: 


Cy 


Darryl ” 

licy Review - ORPM Office Director Approval Notification 


Station 


(SAN 6250 . Final / 

Generati 

^ 1 >">\ "IX" /"S /'‘"I 

1 U cii 1 

SAN 6250 . Final / 


Adm 

ini 

stir a tor ? s S 

i gnat in 

Regi 

ona 

1 Haze 1 ) 


i cy 

Rev 

lew - ORPM 

Office 

Adm 

ini 

strator 1 s S 

i gnat in 

Regi. 

ona 

.1 Haze f ) 



ification 
? Coronado 


j n d S E 


gov> 


Thread.Index: AQHTNvEdbrYceEDWn0S03tebE 

Date: Tue, 2 6 Sep 2 017 18 : 01: 41 +0000 

Message.ID: <lE8153FE-8BSC-43F5-97FD-042E2C6D08FB@e] 

References: 

In.Reply.To: 

A c c e p t.L a n g u a g e : e n - U S 

C o n t e n t.L a n g u a g e : e n - U S 

X-MS-Has-Attach: yes 

X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: <1E8153FE^8B8C^ 43F5-97FD-042E2C6D08FB@epa.gov> 

MIME.Ver sion: 1.0 

X.O riginating-1P: [ 161.80.1.11] 

X.MS.Pub.].i c T r a f f i cT ype : Ema i 1 

X - M i c r o s o f t - E x c h a n g e -- D i a g n o s t i c s : 

1;BN6PRO9MB14 60;35:koJV4j7t+qcssA9jx7y/uwfNRoTkNCo53WGglpTfU8aLaVKbzfdaPzO++wFXtQkRSQ 

S Exchange Antis pam SRFA DIa gno s tic s: S S 0 S;S S OR; 

Fo r e f r o n t..An t i sp am.Rep o r t: 


X 

X 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005547-00003 





































































































SFV: SKI; SCI,:.1; SFV: SKI; SFS : ; DIR 


# fc o C j.\« 


1;SRVR:BN6PRO 9MB1475;H:BN6PR0 9MB14 60.namprdO9.prod.outlook.com;FPR:;SPF:None;LANG:en; 
Return-Path: dravis.samantha@epa. gov 

X.MS-O f fice 3 6 5.FiIterin g-C o r r e1a tion-id: 360811b9-2bb 6-41db-9185-08d50508a455 

X.Mic r o s o ft-Antispam: 

IScan:;RCL:0;PCL:0; RULE ID: (22001) (2017030254152) (2017052603199) (49563074) (2017 


X.Microsoft 


• E x c h a n g e - D i a g n o s t i c s : 

BN6PRO 9MB14 7 5;3:CwUOLmI9IWHhJgHdHbJC+LDOIdeY6 9pyhnWl luRN/ /ha4 rOnvPGyKsQABsL/F7 1 


X.MS.Tr a f fic Type Diagno s tic: BN6 PR 0 9MB14 7 5: 

X.Exchange.Antispam.Report-Test:: UriScan: (229425074694992) 


X.E x c h a n g e - An t i. s p am.R e p o r t.C FA.T e s t: 

BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID: (10 0 0 0 0700101) (100105000095) (100000701101) (100105300095) (1000 


X.Microsoft 


f 


BN 6 PRO9MB14 75;4:PAQ4oW0jGXfPCVorPeeHczY9f9Dt/9nrmfmRer8J9W/jRClruENkf6FrMSJlUj] 


X-Microsoft 


m 

...r ft 


E x c h a n g e.D i a g n o s 1 1 . c s 


E x ch an g e.D i a gn o s t i c s : 

BN6PR0 9MB1475;5:67XnXSC0b6QO7iB8b2yhUm3OOIy3W0iQ4Cz2vK7 0rcEpF/V2anUW6Mo5T42DdS" 


o 


3p amDiagno stic0utput: 1:0 


X 


a 


hi V fH 
i. i <e\. 


e.C ro ss!e na nt.0 rigina1Ar riva1Time: 2 6 S ep 2017 18:01:41.7116 


C) 


X 

X 

X 


MS.Exchange.Cr os s Ten ant- FromEnt i. t yHeader : Hos ted 

■ MS Exchange CrossIenant-1d: 88b378b3 67 4 8- 4867-acf9 76aacbeca6a7 


■ M S.E x c h a n g e.T r a n s p o r t.C r o s s T e n a n t H e a d e r s S t: a mp 


BN 6 PR 0 9 MB14 7 


c; 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005547-00004 
































































To: Rees, Sarah[rees.sarah@epa.gov] 

Cc: Samantha Dravis[Dravis.Samantha@epamail.epa.gov]; Brittany 

Bolen[Bolen.Brittany@epamaii.epa.gov]; Kenny, Shannon[Kenny.Shannon@epa.gov]; Kime, 
Robin[Kime.Robin@epa.gov]; Pritchard, Eileen[Pritchard.Eiieen@epa.gov]; Nickerson, 
William[Nickerson.William@epa.gov]; Corrales, Mark[Corraies.Mark@epa.gov]; Curry, 
Bridgid[Curry.Bridgid@epa.gov]; Owens, Nicole[Owens.Nicole@epa.gov]; VanLare, 
Paula[VanLare.Paula@epa.gov]; Adams, Darryl[Adams.Darryi@epa.gov] 

From: Dravis, Samantha 

Sent: Tue 9/26/2017 6:01:41 PM 

Subject: Re: OP Policy Review - ORPM Office Director Approval Notification (SAN 6250 - Final / 

Administrator's Signature / Review #1 / R09 - 'Coronado Generating Station Regional Haze') 


Approved! 

Sent from my iPad 


On Sep 26, 2017, at 1:58 PM, Sarah Rees < Rees.Sarah@,epamail.epa.gov > wrote: 


Approval for Administrator's Signature: Final - 'Coronado Generating Station Regional Haze' 
This Policy Review is ready for OP Associate Administrator Approval. 

Link to Policy Review Documents 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005548-00001 



To: Samantha Dravis[Dravis.Samantha@epamail.epa.gov]; Brittany 

Bolen[Bolen. Brittany@epamaii.epa.gov] 

From: Microsoft Outlook 

Sent: Tue 9/19/2017 12:57:32 PM 

Subject: Undeliverable: Re: OP Policy Review - ORPM Office Director Approval Notification (SAN 5965 - 
NODA/ OMB Review / Review #1 / OAR - 'RFS Volume Standards - 2018 and BBD for 2019') 

Re: OP Policy Review - ORPM Office Director Approval Notification (SAN 5965 - NODA / OMB Review / 
Review #1 / OAR - 'RFS Volume Standards - 2018 and BBD for 2019') 



dravis.samantha Office 365 Recipients 

Action Required Recipients 


Unknown To address 

Couldn't deliver to the following recipients: 

Dravis.Samantha@epamail.epa.gov, Bolen.Brittany@epamail.epa.gov 


How to Fix It 

The address may be misspelled or may not exist. Try one or more of 
the following: 

• Send the message again following these steps: In Outlook, open 


Report ribbon. In Outlook on the web, select this NDR, then select the 
link "To send this message again, click here." Then delete and retype 
the entire recipient address. If prompted with an Auto-Complete List 



exists and is correct 




The recipient may have set up email forwarding to an incorrect 
address. Ask them to check that any forwarding they've set up is 
working correctly. 

Clear the recipient Auto-Complete List in Outlook or Outlook on the 
web by following the steps in this article: Fix email delivery issues for 
error code 5.1.10 in Office 365 . and then send the message again. 


you're an email admin, refer to the More Info for Email Admins section 
below. 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005550-00001 
















Was this helpful? Send feedback to Microsoft . 


More Info for Email Admins 

Status code: 550 5.1.10 

This error occurs because the sender sent a message to an email address hosted by 
Office 365 but the address is incorrect or doesn't exist at the destination domain. The 
error is reported by the recipient domain's email server, but most often it must be fixed 
by the person who sent the message. If the steps in the How to Fix It section above 
don't fix the problem, and you're the email admin for the recipient, try one or more of the 
following: 

The email address exists and is correct - Confirm that the recipient address exists, is 
correct, and is accepting messages. 

Synchronize your directories - If you have a hybrid environment and are using 
directory synchronization make sure the recipient's email address is synced correctly in 
both Office 365 and in your on-premises directory. 

Errant forwarding rule - Check for forwarding rules that aren't behaving as expected. 
Forwarding can be set up by an admin via mail flow rules or mailbox forwarding address 
settings, or by the recipient via the Inbox Rules feature. 

Recipient has a valid license - Make sure the recipient has an Office 365 license 
assigned to them. The recipient's email admin can use the Office 365 admin center to 
assign a license (Users > Active Users > select the recipient > Assigned License > Edit). 

Mail flow settings and MX records are not correct - Misconfigured mail flow or MX 
record settings can cause this error. Check your Office 365 mail flow settings to make 
sure your domain and any mail flow connectors are set up correctly. Also, work with your 
domain registrar to make sure the MX records for your domain are configured correctly. 

For more information and additional tips to fix this issue, see Fix email delivery issues 
for error code 5,1.10 in Office 365. 


Original Message Details 

Created Date: 9/19/2017 12:57:30 PM 


Sender Address: dravis.samantha@epa.gov 

Recipient Address: Dravis.Samantha@epamail.epa.gov, 

Bolen.Brittany@epamail.epa.gov 

Subject: Re: OP Policy Review - ORPM Office Director Approval 

Notification (SAN 5965 - NODA / OMB Review / Review #1 / 
OAR - 'RFS Volume Standards - 2018 and BBD for 2019') 

Error Details 


Reported error: 550 5.1.10 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipientNotFound; Recipient 

not found by SMTP address lookup 

DSN generated by: MWH p R09 MB1485.namprd09.prod.outlook.com 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005550-00002 



Message Hops 

HOFTIME FROM 

iiii 


TO 


WITH 


1 


RELAY 

TIME 


q/IQ/2017 

12-57 30 MWHPR09MB1469 namprdCra ^ H:RRfll1 ^^ 

PM 

Q/1Q/9017 

^”^!r^'MWHPRO9MB1469.namprdCrai|tfHRRfl^lLllBlc4(S5iTiamprdO0ipro6loJtj8M3IPcSi«fiver 
PM *' ^ (version=TLS 1 _2, 

cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_2J 


2 sec 


Original Message Headers 


Ail t h. e n t i c a t i o n Re s u 11 s : ep a . g o v; d k i m=n one (me s s a g e n o t s i g n e d) 

heade r.d=none;epa.gov; dmarc=none action=none header.from=epa.gov; 

Received: from MWHPRO9MB1469.namprdO9.prod.outlook.com (10.173.50.19) by 
MWHPRO9MB1485.namprdO9.prod.outlook.com (10.173.50.135) with Microsoft SMTP 
Server (version=TLSl_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P256) id 
15.20.77.7; Tue, 19 Sep 2017 12:57:32 +0000 

ived.: from MWHPRO 9MB14 6 9. namprdO 9 . prod. outlook . com ( [ 10.173.50.19 ] ) by 
PR0 9MB14 6 9.namprd0 9.prod.ou11oo k.com ( [ 10.173.50.19]) with mapi id 
15.20.0056.016; Tue, 19 Sep 2017 12:57:30 +0000 

Content.Type : app].ication/ms~tnef; name="winmail. dat" 

C o n t e nt.T r ans fe r.En coding: binary 

From: ”Dravis, Samantha" <dravis.samantha@epa.gov> 

To : "Owens, Nicole" <Owens . Nicole@epa. gov> 

CC: Samantha Dravis <Dravis.S amantha @ epamail.epa.gov>, 

<Bolen.BrittanySepamai1.epa.gov>, n Kenny, °‘ 

< K e n n y. S h a n n o n @ e p a. g o v >, 

> b i n n < K i m e . R o b i 


ttany Bolen 


Kime 


< P r 1 1 c h a r d. E 1 1 e e n 




Nickerson 


Wi11iam 


r 
n 


< N i. c k e r s o n . W 1 1J.:i 

^ n ~ ^ " K " a i e s . Ma r k is e 


. crov> 


§ep. 

a.gov> f "Pr 

itch 

c f 

"Rees , Sara 

h" < 

> v>, 

n Corrales , 

Mar 

”Cu 

rry f Bridgi 

d ” < 


< r e e s . s a r a h @ e p a . g o v: 


„ if 


a 




jams on 


read 


q 


w’ w/ VI s. 


y ,? <Lamson . Amy@epa . gov >, n Jutras, Nathaniel” < Jut:ras . Nathanie 1 @epa . gov> 
Subject: Re: OP Policy Review - ORPM Office Director Approval Notification 

(SAN 5 965 NODA / OMB Review / Review #1 / OAR - f RFS Volume Standards 

2018 and BBD for 2019 1 ) 

Lc: OP Po.] icy Review - ORPM Office Director Approval Notification 

. NODA / OMB Review / Review #1 / OAR 1 RFS Volume Standards 

2 018 and BBD for 2 019 * ) 

Thread.Index: AQHTMKpdKEMJOfmQF0uN3AZ6CeIDmaK8LGAs 

Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 12:57:30 +0000 

Me s s a, g e.ID: < 3 0 7 7 2 5 C A -19 8 A.4 8 2 5 - 96D6-F82B95569672@epa.g o v > 

References: COF9416F882.2D6B9DEE-ON8525819F.006472EE- 
8 52 5 819F. 0 0 64 8 8 98 0epamai.1.. epa. gov> 

In.Reply.To: <0F9416F882.2D6B9DEE•• ON8525819F . 006472EE- 

8 5 2 5 819 F.006488 98 @ epamai1.ep a.gov> 

A c c e p t - L a n g u a g e : e n.U S 

C o n t e n t - L a n g u a g e : e n.U S 

X^MS-Has-Attach: yes 

X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: <307725CA-198A-4825-96D6-F82B95569672@epa.gov> 

MIME.Ve r sion: 1.0 

X O r i g i n a t i n g.- IP: T 2 6 0 0 : 10 0 3 : b 01 e : 9 e 0 : 8 9 b 0 : 7 e 3 7 : 7 091:13 3 01 


X-MS 


licTre 


1 c 


to Li 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005550-00003 

























































































































x: 

i 


x; 


M i c roso f t.Exchange.Diagno s tic s: 

MWHPRO 9MB14 6 9;35:i/4zmTHMb8x8rcLlnZ3JTijcju8AE0eaSdWDW6z7 4OMXtgDNsay4CxSm0NIB/Ot8SJ/JgSv 

MS-Exchange.Antis pam.S RFA.Dia gn o s tic s: S S 0 S;S S OR; 

X.For e f ro nt.Antispam.Repo r t: 

Q T7 l \ J « OFT * QPT « ."j « Q TP\ "J « QT7T ® Q IP Q « * HTD « TTxT'P » Q IF D « ® QH « 

o .l. v # o .£ v jl jt o ..I. \ f o J... V « o .Ia JL f o jl o * ^ U JL 1A« ...a... INI .o f o J... .fcr * ^ o J. \ « 

1;SRVR:MWHPRO9MB148 5;H:MWHPRO9MB14 6 9 .namprdO 9.prod.outlook.com;FPR:;SPF:None;LANG:en; 

R e t u r n P a t h: d r a v i s . s am a n t h a 0 e p a . g o v 

X MS O f fice 3 6 5-FiIterin g C o r r e1ation-Id: 8 e a 9 7 f 9b-8 f 2 c-4 e 8 5-aa 9 4 - 0 8 d 4 f f 5 d f d11 

X.Mic ro s o ft.Antispam: 

UriScan: ; BCL : 0 ; PCL : 0 ; RULE ID : (300000500095) (300135000095) (300000501095) (3001.35300' 
X .MI c r o s o f t .E x c h a n g e. D i a g n o s t i c s : 

1; MWHPRO9MB1485; 3 : nv5YnN3mXPcatYdIAzrSqvjdy5u11dXeKh08NS1 nwHGcxD4UIdhTpk'NaVGAr5iii 

X.MS.Traf f icTypeDiagnost:i c: MWHPRO9MB1485 : 

rt-Test: UriScan: (22 9425074 694 992); 


> 

x: 


C x c h a n g e.An 1 1 . s 

X.E x c h a n g e - An t i s p am..R e p o r t - C FA -Test: 

BCL : 0 ; PCL : 0; RULE ID : (100000700101) (1001050000 95) (100000701101) (10 0105300095) (1.000 
X .M i c r o s o f t. E x c h a n g e - D i a g n o s t i c s : 

MWHPRO9MB14 85; 4 :u Ab6qcboJsklnbahdRg9H4BRKjCy02QzKKbEa3BCMH11hf JREQLd8GoDMB1 sJR, 


....... f 


X. M i c r o s o f t.E x c h a n g e - D i a g n o s t i c s : 

1;MWHPRO9MB14 8 5;5:/6 8 RUF/nMLTO f 91 uNVk IsPxiafU8 55KZDBJ8kAtRPt4 HFRukXHdOC4 kMKfQje 
S p am.D i. a g n o s t i c Ou tpu t: 1: 0 

X MS Exchange Cross!enant -OrIginalArriva1Time: 19 Sep 2017 12:57 : 30.7511 


: 


IT 1 C) 


X 

X 

X 


■ MS Excha.nge CrossTenant FromEntityHeader: Host:ed 

■ M S Excha nge C r o s s T enant Id: 8 8b 3 7 8 b 3 6 7 4 8-4 8 6 7-ac f 9 7 6 aache ca 6 a 7 


■ M S.Excha nge.T r a n sp o r t.C r o ssTenantHeader s S t 


MWHPRO 9MB1485 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005550-00004 













































































To: Owens, Nicole[Owens.Nicole@epa.gov] 

Cc: Samantha Dravis[Dravis.Samantha@epamail.epa.gov]; Brittany 

Bolen[Bolen.Brittany@epamail.epa.gov]; Kenny, Shannon[Kenny.Shannon@epa.gov]; Kime, 

Robin[Kime.Robin@epa.gov]; Pritchard, Eileen[Pritchard.Eileen@epa.gov]; Rees, 
Sarah[rees.sarah@epa.gov]; Nickerson, William[Nickerson.William@epa.gov]; Corraies, 

Mark[Corraies.Mark@epa.gov]; Curry, BridgidfCurry.Bridgid@epa.gov]; Lamson, 

Amy[Lamson.Amy@epa.gov]; Jutras, Nathaniei[Jutras.Nathaniei@epa.gov] 

From: Dravis, Samantha 

Sent: Tue 9/19/2017 12:57:30 PM 

Subject: Re: OP Policy Review - ORPM Office Director Approval Notification (SAN 5965 - NODA / OMB 

Review / Review #1 / OAR - 'RFS Volume Standards - 2018 and BBD for 2019') 

Approved 
Sent from my iPad 


On Sep 18, 2017, at 2:17 PM, Nicole Owens < Owens.Nicole@,epamail.epa.gov > wrote: 


Approval for OMB Transmittal: NODA - 'RFS Volume Standards - 2018 and BBD for 2019' 
This Policy Review is ready for OP Associate Administrator Approval. 

Link to Policy Review Documents <doclink.gif> 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005551-00001 



To: Samantha Dravis[Dravis.Samantha@epamail.epa.gov]; Brittany 

BoienfBolen. Brittany@epamaii.epa.gov] 

From: Microsoft Outlook 

Sent: Tue 9/12/2017 5:10:14 PM 

Subject: Undeliverable: Re: OP Policy Review - ORPM Office Director Approval Notification (SAN 
5422.1 - Final / Administrator's Signature / Review #1 / OW - 'Postponement of Certain Compliance Dates 
for Steam Electric ELG') 

Re: OP Policy Review - ORPM Office Director Approval Notification (SAN 5422.1 - Final / Administrator's 
Signature / Review #1 / OW - 'Postponement of Certain Compliance Dates for Steam Electric ELG') 



dravis.samantha Office 365 Recipients 

Action Required Recipients 


Unknown To address 

Couldn't deliver to the following recipients: 

Dravis.Samantha@epamail.epa.gov, Bolen.Brittany@epamail.epa.gov 

How to Fix It 

The address may be misspelled or may not exist. Try one or more of 

the following: 

• Send the message again following these steps: In Outlook, open 
this non-delivery report (NDR) and choose Send Again from the 
Report ribbon. In Outlook on the web, select this NDR, then select the 
link "To send this message again, click here." Then delete and retype 
the entire recipient address. If prompted with an Auto-Complete List 
suggestion don't select it. After typing the complete address, click 

HI Send. 

• Contact the recipient (by phone, for example) to check that the address 
exists and is correct. /: 

• The recipient may have set up email forwarding to an incorrect 
address. Ask them to check that any forwarding they've set up is 
working correctly. 

• Clear the recipient Auto-Complete List in Outlook or Outlook on the 
web by following the steps in this article: Fix email delivery issues for 

erroicode 5.1.1 Oim Office 365 . and then send the message again. 


you're an email admin, refer to the More Info for Email Admins section 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005553-00001 











below. v;,;/'H 

Was this helpful? Send feedback to Microsoft . 


More Info for Email Admins 

Status code: 550 5.1.10 

This error occurs because the sender sent a message to an email address hosted by 
Office 365 but the address is incorrect or doesn't exist at the destination domain. The 
error is reported by the recipient domain's email server, but most often it must be fixed 
by the person who sent the message. If the steps in the How to Fix It section above 
don't fix the problem, and you're the email admin for the recipient, try one or more of the 
following: 

The email address exists and is correct - Confirm that the recipient address exists, is 
correct, and is accepting messages. 

Synchronize your directories - If you have a hybrid environment and are using 
directory synchronization make sure the recipient's email address is synced correctly in 
both Office 365 and in your on-premises directory. 

Errant forwarding rule - Check for forwarding rules that aren't behaving as expected. 
Forwarding can be set up by an admin via mail flow rules or mailbox forwarding address 
settings, or by the recipient via the Inbox Rules feature. 

Recipient has a valid license - Make sure the recipient has an Office 365 license 
assigned to them. The recipient's email admin can use the Office 365 admin center to 
assign a license (Users > Active Users > select the recipient > Assigned License > Edit). 

Mail flow settings and MX records are not correct - Misconfigured mail flow or MX 
record settings can cause this error. Check your Office 365 mail flow settings to make 
sure your domain and any mail flow connectors are set up correctly. Also, work with your 
domain registrar to make sure the MX records for your domain are configured correctly. 

For more information and additional tips to fix this issue, see Fix email delivery issues 
for error code 5,1.10 in Office 365. 


Original Message Details 

Created Date: 9/12/2017 5:10:11 PM 


Sender Address: dravis.samantha@epa.gov 

Recipient Address: Dravis.Samantha@epamail.epa.gov, 

Bolen.Brittany@epamail.epa.gov 

Subject: Re: OP Policy Review - ORPM Office Director Approval 

Notification (SAN 5422.1 - Final / Administrator's Signature / 
Review #1 / OW - 'Postponement of Certain Compliance Dates 
for Steam Electric ELG') 

Error Details 


Reported error: 550 5.1.10 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipientNotFound; Recipient 

not found by SMTP address lookup 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005553-00002 



DSN generated by: 


Message Hops 

HOFTIME FROM 
(UTC) 


TO 


WITH 


1 


Q/19/9017 

5-10-11 MWHPR09MB1469nam P rd(ra WttRRfl^^ 


PM 

9/12/2017. 
5:10:13 
PM 


RELAY 

TIME 


2 sec 


MWHPRO9MB1469.namprdCMl|tfHRRflMillB1c2^9CTiamprdO'0iproslafti86/SIPcSaffiver 

(version=TLS1_2, 

cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_2f 


Original Message Headers 


v f 


Authentication.Results: epa.gov; dkim=none (message not sign* 

header.d=none;epa.gov; dmarc=none action=none header.from=epa. 

Received: from. MWHPRO 9MB14 6 9 . namprdO 9 . prod. outlook. com. (10.173.50.19) by 
MWHPRO9MB127 9.namprdO9.prod.outlook.com (10.172.50.21) with Microsoft SMTP 
Server (version=TLSl_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P256) 
15.20.35.12; Tue, 12 Sep 2017 17:10:13 +0000 
reived.: from. MWHPRO 9MB14 6 9 . namprdO 9 . prod. outlook. com ( [ 10.173.50.19 ] ) 

. namprdO 9 . prod. out look. com. ( [10.17 3.50.19] ) wi 


,U.i.CI 


1 1(1 


15.20.0035.02 


Tue 


"i 2 S ep 2017 17:10:11 +00 0 0 


Content.Type : appJ.i. cat i. on/ms-tnef; name= winmail 

C o n t en t.T r ansf e r.E n coding: binary 




From: "Dravis, Samantha" <dravis.saman 



mail.epa.gov 


To: "Re es, Sa r ah” < r e e s.s a r ah @ epa.gov> 

CC: S am.an tha Dr avi s < Dr av i s . S amantha0 

<Bo1e n.B ri11 a n y 0 ep amai1. 

< K e n n y. S h. a n n o n 0 e p a. g o v > , 

"Kime, Robin" < Kime.Robin 
< P r i t: c h a r d. E i 1 e e n 0epa.gov: 

<Nickerson . Wi.1..1.iam0epa. gov>, 

Mark" <Corrales.Mark0epa.crovl 


, B r i 11 a n y B o 1 e n 
Shannon" 


” P r i t c h a r d, E i 1 e e n 


ft 


?? ■ 


, Nicke r s o n , Wi 


i am 


it 


"Corrales 


it 




<Curry.Bridgid0epa.gov > r ”Owens r Nico1e 




C urry, Bridgid" 
b ns.Nic o1e 0 epa.gov> 


"Thundiy: 

rr y'^ ^ -V' v 


n 


i 1.1 e r 1 e i 1 e 




ct. 


n 


C T h. u n d i y i 1. K a r e n 0 e p a . g o v > 

< Mu e .1 . 1 e r 1 e i 1 e. C a r yn 0 ep a. 

Subject: Re: OP Policy Review - ORPM Office Director Approval Notification 

(SAN 5422.1 Fina1 / Administ r a tor ? s Signature / Review #1 / 0W 

'Postponement of Certain Compliance Dates for Steam Electric ELG f ) 

Thread.Topic: OP Policy Review - ORPM Office Director Approval Notification 

- Final / Administrator’s Signature / Review #1 / OW . 


SAN 5422.1 


! Postponement of Certain Compliance Dates for Steam. Electric ELG 1 ) 

Thread.Index: AQHTK+14 51 + k.EG4 j z 0aynxzRl GxqPKKxf CnU 

Date: Tue , 1 2 Sep 2 017 17:10:11 + 0 0 0 0 

Message.-ID: C07C13C0E.A2 8B -4B70-A03F-D4 4FE50D5D0 0@epa.gov> 

References: COFCF6F2765.OBA562F8-ON85258199.005DF652- 
85258199.005DF819 0 ep amai1.epa.gov> 

In.Reply-To: COFCF6F27 65.0BA562F8 -ON85258199.005DF652- 

8 5 2 5 8199.0 0 5 D F 819 0 epamai1.ep a.gov> 

A c c e p t - L a n g u a g e : e n.U S 

C o n t e n t - L a n g u a g e : e n - U S 
X-MS. H a s-A11 a ch: yes 

X.MS.TNEF-C o r r e1a t o r: < 0 7 C13 C 0 E-A28 B-4 B 70-A0 3 F-D 4 4 FE 5 0 D 5 D 0 0 0 ep a.gov> 

MIME-Version: 1.0 


ict 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005553-00003 














































































































X.O r i g i n a t i n g - i P: j" 2 60 0: 10 0 3 : b 018 : 3 f 5 5 : e 9 3 5 : 9bb 0:al d 8 : f 2 e 0 'I 

X.M3.PubI.i cTr a f f i cType : Emai .1 

X.Mi cr o s o f t -Exchange - Di agn o s t i c s : 

1;MWHPR 0 9MB14 6 9;3 5:TL1yqtdS SXcsnarMrsj/YQwIkfRY7hRz9C0 4 kXxxkOMVQBUcAh+Hh7uM70AoEeWkS11zhHC 

X.M S - E x c h a n g e - An t i s p am - S R FA - D i. a g n o sties: S S 0 S; S S 0 R; 

X.F o r e f r o n t - An t i s p am. - R e p o r t: 


'■ - 


SFV:SKI;SCL:-1 


« Q IT T • Q T? Q « » 

f k J JL' V » iO X V JL f k„7 .J— k.,5 « f 


3 . C 

J f 


; SCL 


1;SRVR:MWHPRO9MB127 9;H:MWHPRO 9 MB14 6 9 .namprdO9.prod.out1ook.com;FPR:;SPF:None;LANG:en; 

R e t u r n.P a t h: d r a v i. s . s am a n t h a @ e p a . g o v 

X-MS-Office365.FilterLng- Correlation-Id: 49c9ebbd- d489-4177-5c93-08d4fa0120al 

X.M i c r o s o f t.An t i. s p am: 

UriScan: ;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(300000500095)(300135000095)(300000501095)(300135300' 
X . Mi. c r o s o f t . E x ch an ge . D i a gn o s t i c s : 

1;MWHPRO9MB12 7 9;3:SQySGalytuwNYiMCJhImOgQvn7NzalvLr3IbISAsyRsjFWyl6F6MWwulSlZiZB. 
X.MS.TrafficTypeDiagnostic: MWHPRO9MB1279: 

X.Exch.a nge.An t i s p am.Repo r t - Test: UriScan: (229425074694992) ; 

X.Exchan ge.Antis pam.Repo r t-CFA-Test: 

BCL: 0; PCL: 0;RULEID: (10 0 0 0 0700101) (100105000095) (100000701101) (100105300095) (1.000' 


X.Microsoft 


...i... f 


X.Microsoft 


1 


Exchange-Diagno s tic s: 


MWHPRO9MB1279;4:xP+F0U8c3guuKDDC8uKocKNDCULH5Qb2ZpKZcTx8js7WDBZyuJzSUDUjlt:0WB6 


- E x c h a n g e - D i. a g n o s t i c s : 

MWHPRO 9 MB127 9;5:N8Kj B2LXW6fkdCDQtUMahAJLSHjzsayqhrPMLIBScvLFJMSVjWlp2Wn7VgS5CW 
S pamDiagno s ticOutput: 1:0 

X.MS.Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Sep 2017 17:10:11.4189 


rp r* 


X.M S.E x c h a n g e 

X.M S.E x c h a n g e 

X.M S.E x c h a n g e 


C r o s s T e na nt.F r omEntiiym 

C r o s s T e n a n t -1 d: 8 8 b 3 7 8 b 3 - 6 7 4 8 
T r a n s p o r t.C r ossTenantHeadersS 


Hosted 



f 9.7 6 a a cb e c a 6 a 7 

MWHPRO9MB1279 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005553-00004 































































To: Rees, Sarah[rees.sarah@epa.gov] 

Cc: Samantha Dravis[Dravis.Samantha@epamail.epa.gov]; Brittany 

Bolen[Bolen.Brittany@epamail.epa.gov]; Kenny, Shannon[Kenny.Shannon@epa.gov]; Kime, 
Robin[Kime.Robin@epa.gov]; Pritchard, Eileen[Pritchard.Eileen@epa.gov]; Nickerson, 
William[Nickerson.William@epa.gov]; Corraies, Mark[Corraies.Mark@epa.gov]; Curry, 

Bridgid[Curry.Bridgid@epa.gov]; Owens, Nicole[Owens.Nicoie@epa.gov]; Thundiyil, 

Karen[Thundiyil.Karen@epa.gov]; Muellerleile, Caryn[Muellerieile.Caryn@epa.gov] 

From: Dravis, Samantha 

Sent: Tue 9/12/2017 5:10:11 PM 

Subject: Re: OP Policy Review - ORPM Office Director Approval Notification (SAN 5422.1 - Final / 

Administrator's Signature / Review #1 / OW - 'Postponement of Certain Compliance Dates for Steam 
Electric ELG') 

Approved. Thank you. 

Sent from my iPhone 


On Sep 12, 2017, at 1:06 PM, Sarah Rees < Rees.Sarah@,epamail.epa.gov > wrote: 


Approval for Administrator's Signature: Final - 'Postponement of Certain Compliance Dates for 
Steam Electric ELG' 

This Policy Review is ready for OP Associate Administrator Approval. 

Link to Policy Review Documents <doclink.gif> 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005554-00001 



To: Samantha Dravis[Dravis.Samantha@epamail.epa.gov]; Brittany 

BolenfBolen. Brittany@epamail.epa.gov] 

From: Microsoft Outlook 

Sent: Thur 9/21/2017 8:31:31 PM 

Subject: Undeliverable: Re: OP Policy Review - ORPM Office Director Approval Notification (SAN 
5719.11 - NODA / OMB Review / Review #1 / OAR - 'Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for 
New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources: Three-Month Stay of Cert... 

Re: OP Policy Review - ORPM Office Director Approval Notification (SAN 5719.11 - NODA / OMB Review 
/ Review #1 / OAR - 'Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and 
Modified Sources: Three-Month Stay of Certain Requirements') 



Your message couldn't be delivered to multiple recipients. 

The recipients weren't found at epamail.epa.gov. 


dravis.samantha Office 365 Recipients 

Action Required Recipients 

Unknown To address 

Couldn't deliver to the following recipients: 

Dravis.Samantha@epamail.epa.gov, Bolen.Brittany@epamail.epa.gov 

How to Fix It 

The address may be misspelled or may not exist. Try one or more of 

the following: 

• Send the message again following these steps: In Outlook, open 
this non-delivery report (NDR) and choose Send Again from the 
Report ribbon. In Outlook on the web, select this NDR, then select the 
link "To send this message again, click here." Then delete and retype 
the entire recipient address. If prompted with an Auto-Complete List 
suggestion don't select it. After typing the complete address, click 
Send. 

• Contact the recipient (by phone, for example) to check that the address 
exists and is correct. 

• The recipient may have set up email forwarding to an incorrect 
address. Ask them to check that any forwarding they've set up is 
working correctly. 

• Clear the recipient Auto-Complete List in Outlook or Outlook on the 
web by following the steps in this article: Fix email delivery issues for 
error code 5.1.10 in Office 365 , and then send the message again. 
Retype the entire recipient address before selecting Send. 

If the problem continues, forward this message to your email admin. If 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005556-00001 










you're an email admin, refer to the More Info for Email Admins section 
below. 

Was this helpful? Send feedback to Microsoft . 


More Info for Email Admins 

Status code: 550 5.1.10 

This error occurs because the sender sent a message to an email address hosted by 
Office 365 but the address is incorrect or doesn't exist at the destination domain. The 
error is reported by the recipient domain's email server, but most often it must be fixed 
by the person who sent the message. If the steps in the How to Fix It section above 
don’t fix the problem, and you're the email admin for the recipient, try one or more of the 
following: 

The email address exists and is correct - Confirm that the recipient address exists, is 
correct, and is accepting messages. 

Synchronize your directories - If you have a hybrid environment and are using 
directory synchronization make sure the recipient's email address is synced correctly in 
both Office 365 and in your on-premises directory. 

Errant forwarding rule - Check for forwarding rules that aren't behaving as expected. 
Forwarding can be set up by an admin via mail flow rules or mailbox forwarding address 
settings, or by the recipient via the Inbox Rules feature. 

Recipient has a valid license - Make sure the recipient has an Office 365 license 
assigned to them. The recipient's email admin can use the Office 365 admin center to 
assign a license (Users > Active Users > select the recipient > Assigned License > Edit). 

Mail flow settings and MX records are not correct - Misconfigured mail flow or MX 
record settings can cause this error. Check your Office 365 mail flow settings to make 
sure your domain and any mail flow connectors are set up correctly. Also, work with your 
domain registrar to make sure the MX records for your domain are configured correctly. 

For more information and additional tips to fix this issue, see Fix email delivery issues 
for error code 5.1.10 in Office 365. 


Original Message Details 

Created Date: 9/21/2017 8:31:29 PM 


Sender Address: 
Recipient Address: 

Subject: 


Error Details 


dravis.samantha@epa.gov 

Dravis.Samantha@epamail.epa.gov, 

Bolen.Brittany@epamail.epa.gov 

Re: OP Policy Review - ORPM Office Director Approval 
Notification (SAN 5719.11 - NODA / OMB Review / Review #1 / 
OAR - 'Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for 
New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources: Three-Month Stay 
of Certain Requirements') 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005556-00002 


























Reported error: 

DSN generated by: 


550 5.1.10 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipientNotFound; Recipient 
not found by SMTP address lookup 

MWHPR09MB1280.namprd09.prod.outlook.com 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005556-00003 



Message Hops 

HOPTIME FROM 

mm 


TO 


WITH 


1 


RELAY 

TIME® 

1 sec 


q/21/2017 

8 31 30 MWHPR09MB1469 namprdaM P fi ^^^ aM ^ l4,je ^ mm P rcIQfe Pr oc J- o utl oo k. com 
PM 

0/21/2017 

Rtitn MWHPR09MB1469 nam P rdB ^^ 59M ^^^ nBm PrdMcprnMhfliflM^R.S®iiver 
PM (version=TLS1_2, 

cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_25C 


Original Message Headers 


Authentication.Results: epa.gov; dkim=none (message not signed) 

header.d=none;epa.gov; dmarc=none action=none header.from=epa.gov; 

Received: from MWHPRO9MB14 6 9 .namprdO 9.prod.outlook.com (10.173.50.19) by 
MWHPRO9MB12 80.namprdO9.prod.outlook.com. (10.172.50.22) with Microsoft SMTP 
Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA__WITH_AES_25 6_CBC_SHA33 4_P2 56) 
15.20.77.7; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 20:31:30 +0000 
Received: f rom. MWHPR0 9MB14 6 9 . namprd0 9 . prod. ou11 ook. com ( [ 10.173.50.19 ] ) hy 
MWHPR0 9MB14 6 9. namprd0 9 . pr od. ou11 ook. com. ( [ 10.17 3.50.19]) wi th :m.api id 
15.20.0077.011; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 20:31:30 +0000 

C o nt e n t.T ype: app1ic atio n/ms-1ne f; n ame="winmail.dat" 

Content.Transfer.Encoding: binary 


From: "Dravis, Samantha" < a ravis.samai 


^ C...-L 


To: 


H 


:es 


Cl "“t .."i 

O cl c 


ih. 




trees.sara 


. gov> 


CC: Samantha. Dravis <Dravis . Samantha@epamai 1 .epa 

< B o 1 e n . B r i 11 a n y @ ep ama i 1. ep a 
<Kenny.Shannon@epa.gov>, 

"Kime, Robin" <Kime.Robing 

< P ritchard.E i.1 een@epa.gov: 

<Nic ke rs o n.Wi ].].i am@ep a.gov>, 


ttany Bolen 


n 



Shannon 


" P r i t c h a r d, E i 1 e e n " 


Nickerson, Wi 


i am 




" C o r r a 1 e s, Ma r k " < C o r r a .1 e s 

...^ n - 


dei 


■CCur ry. Br idgid@epa . gov>, 

"Gilbreath, 

J a n *' < G i 1 b r e a t: h . J a n @ e p a. g o v > 

< B r o w n. S t: e p h a n i e N @ e p a . g o v > 
S ub j e c t: Re: O P Po1icy Review - ORPM 

O 


gov>, "Curry, Bridgid 
"Owens, Nicole" < Ow ens.Nic o1 


?? 


go vo, 


"Brown, Szex 


lanie N. 


H 


Lee Director 


■ / 


kp p r o v a 1 N o t i f i c a t i o n. 
* 0 i 1 a n d N a t u r a 1 G a s 


r uc ted, and Modif 


:iea sources: 


5719.11 - NODA / OMB Review / Review # 

Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconst. 

Three.Month Stay of Certain Requirements 1 ) 

read..Topic: OP Policy Review - ORPM Office Director Approval Notification 

(SAN 5719.11 NODA / OMB Review / Review #1 / OAR - * Oil and Natural Gas 

Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources: 

Three.Month Stay of Certain Requirements *) 

Thread.Index: AQHTMxPwHRDbXEy3BE6+J+TmBkvF+KK/yw7o 

Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2 017 2 0 :31:2 9 +0 0 0 0 

Message-ID: <B246FE1B-D086- 42E6-A10D-2264A596BFCB@epa.gov> 

References: COF08C5C3BE.BCEOF86B-ON852581A2.006DAC76- 
852581A2.006DAE8B@epamail.epa.gov> 

In-Reply-To: <OF08C5C3BE.BCEOF86B-ON852581A2.006DAC76- 
852581A2.006DAE8B@epamail.epa.gov> 

Accept-Language: en-US 
Content-Lanauage: en-US 
MS-Has-Attach: yes 

MS-TNEF-Correlator: <B246FElB-D086-42E6-A10D-2264A596BFCB@epa.gov> 

MIME.Version: 1.0 


X 

X 


id 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005556-00004 
































































































































X O rigin a ting-iP: [2 6 0 0:10 0 3:b 01f:7 d 0 2:f 9 0 c:1dd5:a c3 6:4 a 5 d] 

X.MS.Pub].icTrafficType: Emai1 

X.M i c r o s o f t - E x c h a n g e - D i. a g n o s t i c s : 

1;MWHPR 0 9MB14 6 9;3 5:7Y1771/Hc3ufpjWginkx/8YSuNhmUC3TvwoNlCRqDwEB01e82Kx4Ehmv9uuIhuU9CQ6YtV6 


X.MS-Exchange-Antis pc 

X.Fo r e f r o nt-Antisp am 


im .SRFA.Diagnostics: SSOS;SSOR; 

Report: 


U » C 
f >• 


» CfT 
$ .,/ J.i 


S F V: S KI; S C L: -1; S F V: S KI; S F S : ; DIR: I 
1;S RVR:MWHPR 0 9 MB12 8 0; H : MWH PR 0 9MB14 6 9 .n amp rd 0 9.p rod.ou11ook.com;FPR:;S PF:No n e;LANG:e n 


R e t u r n.P a t h: d r a v i s . s am a n t h a, @ epa. g o v 

X MS 0 f fice 3 6 5 F i 1 terin g Co rrelation-id: 8 8 c 3 016 3-dc 3 9-4 6 ae-1866 - 0 8 d5 012 fbdad 

X.M i c r o s o f t.An t i. s p am: 

UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID: (300000500095) (300135000095) (3000005010 95) (300135300' 
X.M i. c r o s o f t.E x c h a, n g e.D i a g n o s t i c s : 

1;MWHPRO9MB12 8 0;3:btbc0wym9vwPIPIr5wBbANlen0EQth2oAtf6oqPTsrBSgb9pnH5xH4Xi53PXc2' 
X.MS.TrafficTypeDiagnostic: MWHPR09MB1280: 

X.Exch.a nge.An t i sp am.Repo r t - T e s t: UriScan: (229425074694992) ; 

X.E x c h a n g e.An t i s p am .R e p o r t C F A - T e s t: 

BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID: (100000700101) (100105000095) (10 0 0 0 0701101) (100105300095) (1000 


X.Microsoft 


...i... f 


X.Microsoft 


1 


E xchange-Diagno s tic s: 


MWHPRO9MB12 8 0;4:BxmGUuuiq2xMefJo4SoL/61/5fZxzmmg52ealVAHeF0Eh76barn.ykV6ZZYu.N3Lb! 


-Exchange-Diagnost:ics : 

MWH PRO 9 MB128 0;5:wOGgQmooyYecSAwkRXLKAZ6wUQfrLI 
S pamDiagno s ticOu t pu t : 1:0 

X.MS.Exchange.CrossTenant-.OriginalArrivalTime : 21 Sep 2017 20:31: 29 9340 


iMBAcWqa26BoI6PGeZxFVBji32 


o o 


rp r* 


X M S E x c h a, n g e 

X M S E x c h a n g e 

X M S E x c h a n g e 


C r o s s T e na nt.F r omEntiiym 

C r o s s T e n a n t -1 d: 8 8 b 3 7 8 b 3 - 6 7 4 8 
T r a n s p o r t.C r o ssTenantHeadersS 


Hosted 



f9.7 6aacbeca 

MWH PR 0 9 MB12 8 


6 a 7 
0 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005556-00005 






























































To: Rees, Sarah[rees.sarah@epa.gov] 

Cc: Samantha Dravis[Dravis.Samantha@epamail.epa.gov]; Brittany 

Bolen[Bolen.Brittany@epamail.epa.gov]; Kenny, Shannon[Kenny.Shannon@epa.gov]; Kime, 
Robin[Kime.Robin@epa.gov]; Pritchard, Eileen[Pritchard.Eileen@epa.gov]; Nickerson, 
William[Nickerson.William@epa.gov]; Corraies, Mark[Corraies.Mark@epa.gov]; Curry, 

Bridgid[Curry.Bridgid@epa.gov]; Owens, Nicole[Owens.Nicole@epa.gov]; Gilbreath, 
Jan[Gilbreath.Jan@epa.gov]; Brown, Stephanie N.[Brown.StephanieN@epa.gov] 

From: Dravis, Samantha 

Sent: Thur 9/21/2017 8:31:29 PM 

Subject: Re: OP Policy Review - ORPM Office Director Approval Notification (SAN 5719.11 - NODA / 

OMB Review / Review #1 / OAR - 'Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, 
Reconstructed, and Modified Sources: Three-Month Stay of Certain Requirements') 

Approved 

Sent from my iPhone 


On Sep 21, 2017, at 3:58 PM, Sarah Rees < Rees.Sarah@,epamail.epa.gov > wrote: 


Approval for OMB Transmittal: NODA - 'Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, 
Reconstructed, and Modified Sources: Three-Month Stay of Certain Requirements' 

This Policy Review is ready for OP Associate Administrator Approval. 

Link to Policy Review Documents <doclink.gif> 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005557-00001 



To: Samantha Dravis[Dravis.Samantha@epamail.epa.gov]; Brittany 

BolenfBolen. Brittany@epamail.epa.gov] 

From: Microsoft Outlook 

Sent: Thur 9/21/2017 8:31:21 PM 

Subject: Undeliverable: Re: OP Policy Review - ORPM Office Director Approval Notification (SAN 
5719.10 - NODA / OMB Review / Review #1 / OAR - 'Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for 
New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources: Stay of Certain Requirem... 

Re: OP Policy Review - ORPM Office Director Approval Notification (SAN 5719.10 - NODA / OMB Review 
/ Review #1 / OAR - 'Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and 
Modified Sources: Stay of Certain Requirements') 



Your message couldn't be delivered to multiple recipients. 

The recipients weren't found at epamail.epa.gov. 


dravis.samantha Office 365 Recipients 

Action Required Recipients 

Unknown To address 

Couldn't deliver to the following recipients: 

Dravis.Samantha@epamail.epa.gov, Bolen.Brittany@epamail.epa.gov 

How to Fix It 

The address may be misspelled or may not exist. Try one or more of 

the following: 

• Send the message again following these steps: In Outlook, open 
this non-delivery report (NDR) and choose Send Again from the 
Report ribbon. In Outlook on the web, select this NDR, then select the 
link "To send this message again, click here." Then delete and retype 
the entire recipient address. If prompted with an Auto-Complete List 
suggestion don't select it. After typing the complete address, click 
Send. 

• Contact the recipient (by phone, for example) to check that the address 
exists and is correct. 

• The recipient may have set up email forwarding to an incorrect 
address. Ask them to check that any forwarding they've set up is 
working correctly. 

• Clear the recipient Auto-Complete List in Outlook or Outlook on the 
web by following the steps in this article: Fix email delivery issues for 
error code 5.1.10 in Office 365 , and then send the message again. 
Retype the entire recipient address before selecting Send. 

If the problem continues, forward this message to your email admin. If 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005559-00001 










you're an email admin, refer to the More Info for Email Admins section 
below. 

Was this helpful? Send feedback to Microsoft . 


More Info for Email Admins 

Status code: 550 5.1.10 

This error occurs because the sender sent a message to an email address hosted by 
Office 365 but the address is incorrect or doesn't exist at the destination domain. The 
error is reported by the recipient domain's email server, but most often it must be fixed 
by the person who sent the message. If the steps in the How to Fix It section above 
don’t fix the problem, and you're the email admin for the recipient, try one or more of the 
following: 

The email address exists and is correct - Confirm that the recipient address exists, is 
correct, and is accepting messages. 

Synchronize your directories - If you have a hybrid environment and are using 
directory synchronization make sure the recipient's email address is synced correctly in 
both Office 365 and in your on-premises directory. 

Errant forwarding rule - Check for forwarding rules that aren't behaving as expected. 
Forwarding can be set up by an admin via mail flow rules or mailbox forwarding address 
settings, or by the recipient via the Inbox Rules feature. 

Recipient has a valid license - Make sure the recipient has an Office 365 license 
assigned to them. The recipient's email admin can use the Office 365 admin center to 
assign a license (Users > Active Users > select the recipient > Assigned License > Edit). 

Mail flow settings and MX records are not correct - Misconfigured mail flow or MX 
record settings can cause this error. Check your Office 365 mail flow settings to make 
sure your domain and any mail flow connectors are set up correctly. Also, work with your 
domain registrar to make sure the MX records for your domain are configured correctly. 

For more information and additional tips to fix this issue, see Fix email delivery issues 
for error code 5.1.10 in Office 365. 


Original Message Details 

Created Date: 9/21/2017 8:31:19 PM 


Sender Address: 
Recipient Address: 

Subject: 


Error Details 


dravis.samantha@epa.gov 

Dravis.Samantha@epamail.epa.gov, 

Bolen.Brittany@epamail.epa.gov 

Re: OP Policy Review - ORPM Office Director Approval 
Notification (SAN 5719.10 - NODA / OMB Review / Review #1 / 
OAR - 'Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for 
New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources: Stay of Certain 
Requirements') 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005559-00002 


























Reported error: 

DSN generated by: 


550 5.1.10 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipientNotFound; Recipient 
not found by SMTP address lookup 

MWHPR09MB1280.namprd09.prod.outlook.com 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005559-00003 



Message Hops 

HOFT1ME FROM 
(UTC) 


TO 


WITH 


1 


RELAY 

TIME 

1 sec 


q/21/2017 

7' MWHPR09MB1469.namprdfi«ip*6«eQinfiJ4ddJiiiamprd6Sapfod.outlook.com 
o.ol .ZXj 

PM 

Q/91/9017 

R 91 # MWHPR09MB1469.namprdllB/Jftlrl(RR66lflfidl28djii»mprdM{piaEBQbfliLSMro.fiiBiiver 
PM (version=TLS1_2, 

cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_25< 


1 sec 


Original Message Headers 


Authentication.Results: epa.gov; dkim=none (message not signed) 

header.d=none;epa.gov; dmarc=none action=none header.from=epa.gov; 

Received: from MWHPRO 9MB14 6 9 .namprdO 9.prod.outlook.com (10.173.50.19) by 
MWH P R 0 9 MB 12 8 0. n a mp r d 0 9 . p r o d. o u 11 ook.com (10.172.50.22) w i. t h M i c r o s o f t S MT P 
Server (version=TLSl 2, cipher=TLS ECDHE RSA WITH AES 256 CBC SHA384 P256) id 
15.20.77.7; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 20:31:21 +0000 
:eived. : from. MW HPR09MB14 6 9 .namprd09.prod.ou11 ook. com ( [ 10.173.50.19] ) 


MWHPR0 9MB14 6 9. namprd0 9 . pr od. ou11 ook. com. ( [ 10.17 3.50.19]) wi th :m.api id 
15.20.0077.011; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 20:31:20 +0000 

C o nt e nt.T ype: app1ic atio n/ms-1ne f; n ame="winmail.dat" 

C o n t e n t.T r a n s f e r.E n c o d i n g: b i n a r y 


F r om: " D r av i s , S aman t ha " < a r av ::l s . s aman 


^ C...-L 


To: 


H 


:es 


C7 """t .."i 

O Cl c 


ih 




trees.sara 


C C: S am a n t h a. D r a v i s < D r a v i s . S am a n t h a @ 

a 


< B o .1. e n . B r i 11 a n y § ep am a i ’ 

CKenny.Shannon@epa.gov>, 

" Kime, Robi n" < Ki.me. Roi 

< P r i t c h a r d. E :i.1 een@epa.gov: 

CNicker son . Wi].1.iarn.@epa . gov>, 


mail.epa 

If Tjr . 


ttany Bolen 


Shannon 


n 



" P r i t c h a r d, E i 1 e e n ” 


Nicker sore Wi 


i am 




"C o r r a1e s, Mar k 


'■" < C o r r a 1 e s . ms 


*epa.gov>, "Cu r r y, Bridgid 


?? 


: Curry . Bridgid@epa. gov>, "Owens, Nicole" < Owe ns . Nicol 


go vo, 


"Gilbreath, 

Jan" <Gilbreath.Jan@epa.gov>, "Brown, Stephanie N." 

<Brown.StephanieN@epa.gov> 

Subject: Re: OP Pol.icy Review - ORPM Office Director Approval Notification 

(SAN 5719.10 - NODA / OMB Review / Review #1 / OAR - * Oil and Natural Gas 
Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources: Stay 
o f Ce r tain Re quir erne n t s ? ) 

Thread.Topic: OP Policy Review - ORPM Office Director Approval Notification 

(SAN 5719.10 . NODA / OMB Review / Review #1 / O.AR - 1 Oil and Natural Gas 

Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources: Stay 
o f C e r t a i n Re qu i r ern.e n t s * ) 

T hre ad.Index: AQHTMxP/dE 8 uTmV0 uE yco19 zXWe0 fqK/ywIN 

Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2 017 20:31:19 +0 0 0 0 

Me s s a, g e.ID : < 0 F 0 6 7 3 C 9 .E D 3 D.4 D 4 8 - B 2 2 A■- 5 2 6 6 416 E1E 2 0 @ €3p a . g o v> 

References: COF2AB8606A.05A4EB6E-ON852581A2.006DB777 
852581A2.0 0 6DB 9 71@ epamai1.epa.gov> 

In.Reply-To: COF2AB8606A.05A4EB6E-ON852581A2.006DB777- 

8 52581A2.006DB971@ep amai1.ep a.gov> 

A c c e p t.L a n g u a g e : e n - U S 

C o n t e n t - L a n a u a g e : e n.U S 

MS.Has.Attach: yes 

MS.TNEF.C o r r e1 a t o r: < 0 F 0 6 7 3 C 9-E D 3 D-4 D 4 8-B 2 2A-5 2 6 6 416 E1E 2 0 @ ep a.gov> 

MIME.Version: 1.0 


x; 

x; 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005559-00004 










































































































































X.O rigin a ting-1P: [2600:1003:b 01f:7 d 0 2:f 9 0 c:1dd5:a c 3 6:4a 5 d] 

X..M ,3.P u b ]..i c T r a f f i c T y p e : E m a, i... .1 

X.Mi c r o s o f t -Ex change - D i a,gn o s t i c s : 

L;MWHPRO9MB146 9;35: HkP4 fhdOJDX2ukKW5LsGZUD/axGDfBLp6wDV+yDAL9QA5czxN2ccwvXBrInCJKwFVjiOCIN 


X.M S - E x c h a n g e - An t i s p <■ 

X.Fo r e f r o nt-Antisp am 


im .SRFA.Diagnostics: SSOS;SSOR; 

Report: 


SFV: SKI; SCL: -1; SFV: SKI; SFS : ; DIR: INB; SFP : ; SCI,: - 
1;SRVR:MWHPRO9MB12 8 0;H:MWHPRO 9 MB14 6 9.namprdO9.prod.outlook.com;FPR:;SPF:None;LANG:en 


R e t u r n.P a t h: d r a v i s . s am a n t h a, @ e p a . g o v 

X MS O f fice 3 6 5 F i 1 terin g Co rrelation-Id: 52442272-a 0 0 8-4 f7 a-5 5 fb 0 8 d5 012 fb 7 be 

X.M i c r o s o f t. An t i s p am.: 

UriScan: ;BCL:0;PCI,:0;RULEID: (300000500095) (300135000095) (300000501095) (300135300 
X .M i. c r o s o f t.E x c h a, n g e - D i a g n o s t i. c s : 


MWHPRO9MB1 


o o 


6 YhxW 1J 8 a h.M S 5/ +dRWt JMYY' 


X-MS-TrafficTypeDiagnostic: MWHPRO9MB128 0: 

X-Exchange-Antispam.Report-Test: UriScan: (229425074694992); 

X-Exchange-Antispam.Report-CFA-Test: 

BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID: (100000700101) (100105000095) (100000701101) (100105300095) (1000 


X-Microsoft 


...i... f 


X.Microsoft 


1 


E x c h a n g e - D i a g n o s t: i c 




MWH PR 0 9MB1280;4:lWZhTpubMfTT+O+Ks; 


3 u v 8 g qH u+ g XMH 4 O D V 71J Z s g I, qqd 2 j 2 E qO c Gh 3 X wp o ] 


E x c han g e - D i a gn o s t i c s : 


MWHPRO 9MB12 8 0;5:TupXLwSxLlvLPordhPbdeo5dL/UkHnnWNsUkpOIrtFvYJFdazSdl4ZMb57+umf 

1:0 


S p amD i. a g n o s 1 1 . c Ou tpu t: 

X.MS.Exchange.CrossTenant-.OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Sep 2017 20:31:19.9025 


(UTC) 


.MS. 

Exchange. 

.Cross 

.MS. 

Exchange- 

.Cross 

.MS. 

Exchange. 

.Trans 


Hosted 


MWHPRO9MB1280 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005559-00005 





























































To: Rees, Sarah[rees.sarah@epa.gov] 

Cc: Samantha Dravis[Dravis.Samantha@epamail.epa.gov]; Brittany 

Bolen[Bolen.Brittany@epamail.epa.gov]; Kenny, Shannon[Kenny.Shannon@epa.gov]; Kime, 
Robin[Kime.Robin@epa.gov]; Pritchard, Eileen[Pritchard.Eileen@epa.gov]; Nickerson, 
William[Nickerson.William@epa.gov]; Corraies, Mark[Corraies.Mark@epa.gov]; Curry, 

Bridgid[Curry.Bridgid@epa.gov]; Owens, Nicole[Owens.Nicole@epa.gov]; Gilbreath, 
Jan[Gilbreath.Jan@epa.gov]; Brown, Stephanie N.[Brown.StephanieN@epa.gov] 

From: Dravis, Samantha 

Sent: Thur 9/21/2017 8:31:19 PM 

Subject: Re: OP Policy Review - ORPM Office Director Approval Notification (SAN 5719.10 - NODA / 

OMB Review / Review #1 / OAR - 'Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, 
Reconstructed, and Modified Sources: Stay of Certain Requirements') 

Approved 

Sent from my iPhone 


On Sep 21, 2017, at 3:58 PM, Sarah Rees < Rees.Sarah@,epamail.epa.gov > wrote: 


Approval for OMB Transmittal: NODA - 'Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, 
Reconstructed, and Modified Sources: Stay of Certain Requirements' 

This Policy Review is ready for OP Associate Administrator Approval. 

Link to Policy Review Documents <doclink.gif> 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005560-00001 



To: Samantha Dravis[Dravis.Samantha@epamail.epa.gov]; Brittany 

BolenfBolen. Brittany@epamail.epa.gov] 

From: Microsoft Outlook 

Sent: Thur 11/2/2017 9:47:16 PM 

Subject: Undeliverabie: Re: OP Policy Review - ORPM Office Director Approval Notification (SAN 6402 - 
NPRM / Administrator's Signature / Review #1 / OW - 'Idaho UIC Class II Well Program - Voluntary 
Primacy Withdrawal') 

Re: OP Policy Review - ORPM Office Director Approval Notification (SAN 6402 - NPRM / Administrator's 
Signature / Review #1 / OW - 'Idaho UIC Class II Well Program - Voluntary Primacy Withdrawal') 



dravis.samantha Office 365 Recipients 

Action Required Recipients 


Unknown To address 

Couldn't deliver to the following recipients: 

Dravis.Samantha@epamail.epa.gov, Bolen.Brittany@epamail.epa.gov 

How to Fix It 

The address may be misspelled or may not exist. Try one or more of 

the following: 

• Send the message again following these steps: In Outlook, open 
this non-delivery report (NDR) and choose Send Again from the 
Report ribbon. In Outlook on the web, select this NDR, then select the 
link "To send this message again, click here." Then delete and retype 
the entire recipient address. If prompted with an Auto-Complete List 
suggestion don't select it. After typing the complete address, click 

Hill! Send. 

• Contact the recipient (by phone, for example) to check that the address 
exists and is correct. 

• The recipient may have set up email forwarding to an incorrect 
address. Ask them to check that any forwarding they've set up is 
working correctly. 

• Clear the recipient Auto-Complete List in Outlook or Outlook on the 
web by following the steps in this article: Fix email delivery issues for 

erroicode 5.1.10 in Office 365 . and then send the message again. 


you're an email admin, refer to the More Info for Email Admins section 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005562-00001 











below. v;,;/'H 

Was this helpful? Send feedback to Microsoft . 


More Info for Email Admins 

Status code: 550 5.1.10 

This error occurs because the sender sent a message to an email address hosted by 
Office 365 but the address is incorrect or doesn't exist at the destination domain. The 
error is reported by the recipient domain's email server, but most often it must be fixed 
by the person who sent the message. If the steps in the How to Fix It section above 
don't fix the problem, and you're the email admin for the recipient, try one or more of the 
following: 

The email address exists and is correct - Confirm that the recipient address exists, is 
correct, and is accepting messages. 

Synchronize your directories - If you have a hybrid environment and are using 
directory synchronization make sure the recipient's email address is synced correctly in 
both Office 365 and in your on-premises directory. 

Errant forwarding rule - Check for forwarding rules that aren't behaving as expected. 
Forwarding can be set up by an admin via mail flow rules or mailbox forwarding address 
settings, or by the recipient via the Inbox Rules feature. 

Recipient has a valid license - Make sure the recipient has an Office 365 license 
assigned to them. The recipient's email admin can use the Office 365 admin center to 
assign a license (Users > Active Users > select the recipient > Assigned License > Edit). 

Mail flow settings and MX records are not correct - Misconfigured mail flow or MX 
record settings can cause this error. Check your Office 365 mail flow settings to make 
sure your domain and any mail flow connectors are set up correctly. Also, work with your 
domain registrar to make sure the MX records for your domain are configured correctly. 

For more information and additional tips to fix this issue, see Fix email delivery issues 
for error code 5,1.10 in Office 365. 


Original Message Details 

Created Date: 11/2/2017 9:47:14 PM 


Sender Address: 
Recipient Address: 

Subject: 


Error Details 

Reported error: 


dravis.samantha@epa.gov 

Dravis.Samantha@epamail.epa.gov, 

Bolen.Brittany@epamail.epa.gov 

Re: OP Policy Review - ORPM Office Director Approval 
Notification (SAN 6402 - NPRM / Administrator's Signature / 
Review #1 / OW - 'Idaho UIC Class II Well Program - Voluntary 
Primacy Withdrawal') 

550 5.1.10 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipientNotFound; Recipient 
Dravis.Samantha@epamail.epa.gov not found by SMTP 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005562-00002 



DSN generated by: 


address lookup 

MWHPR09MB1197.namprd09.prod.outlook.com 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005562-00003 



Message Hops 

HOFTIME FROM 
(UTC) 


TO 


WITH 


1 


RELAY 

TIME 


11/2/2017 

9 47 14 *MWHPR09MB1469. outlook.com 

PM 

^MWHPRO9MB1469.namprd(Ml(tfNJ2iRft0ILH&1d<9(Ji7iamprd(Miprofikxftj8M3IPcS)®wer 

PM ‘ 15 ( vers ion=TLS 1 __2, 

cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_2‘ 


1 sec 


Original Message Headers 


Authentication-Results: epa.gov; dkim=none (message not signed) 
header.d=none;epa.gov; dmarc=none action=none header.from=epa.gov; 

Received: from MWHPRO9MB1469.namprdO9.prod.outlook.com (10.173.50.19) by 
MWH P R 0 9 MB1197.namprd0 9.pr od.outlook.com (10.172.49.143) with Mic r o s o f t SMT P 
Server (version=TLSl_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P256) id 
5.20.197.13; Thu, 2 Nov 2017 21:47:15 +0000 
e i ved.: f r orn. MWH PR0 9MB14 6 9. namprd0 9 . pr od. ou11 oo k.. com ( [ 10.173.50.19 ] ) hy 
MWHPR09MB14 6 9 .namprd09.prod.ou11ook.com ([10.173.50.19]) with mapi id 
15.20.0197.013; Thu, 2 Nov 2017 21:47:14 +0000 

Content.Type : app 1 icat:ion/ms. tnef; name= "winmai 1. da 

C o n t e n t.T r a n s f e r.E n c o d i n g : b i n a r y 

From: " Dr a vis, S arn.ant.ha" <dr avi s . s aman tha @ epa . go v> 

To: " O'we n s, N i c o 1 e ,f < 0we n s . N i c o .1 e 0 e p a. g o v > 

CC: Samantha Dravis <Dravis.S amantha @ej 

<Bo1e n.B ri11 any0epamai1.epa.g 
< R e n n y. S h a n n o n @ e p a. g o v >, 

"Rime, Robin” <Kime . Robin0epa . gov: 




man . epa . gov>. 


ttany Bolen 




Pr.it cl 


Eileen 


n 


CPritchard. Ed..1 een0 e p a. g o v >, "Nickerson, William 


n 


<Nickerson.W: 


! i 


am@epa.gov> 


"C o r r a1e s, Mar k 


<Corrales 


< Cu r r y . B r i. dg i 

"Adams, 

Darryl" 
ect: ' D 



larkisepa. aov> 


n r-< 


Curry, Bring 


. gov: 


"Schillo, Bruce" <Schillo.Bruce0 



gov>, 


lams. 


S u..o 


l y ...lie epci 
0 P Polic y Review 


ORPM 


S'\ 

z. 


NPRM 


i n i s t r a t: o r ? s S 


i c e Dir e c t o r Appr ova1 No tific a tion 
cure / Review #1 / OW . 7 Idaho UIC 


Class II Well Program - Voluntary Primacy Withdrawal 1 ) 


•eact. 


1 r* * 
*•.' <& 


Po].icy Review - ORPM Office Director Approval Notification 

2 . NPRM / Administrator 1 s Signature / Review #1 / OW . 1 Idaho UIC 

Class II We.].1 Program - Voluntary Primacy Withdrawal ? ) 

Thread.Index: AQHTVCAzFKCJ5BLQKki+3P9w7iQ6FqMBoApD 

Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2 017 21:4 7:14 + 0 0 0 0 

Message ID: < E 2 9 0 E 5 6 F AFB 2 4329 B12 B-175AGCRERC24@epa 

R. e f e r e n c e s : < 0 F 6 D 8 C14 0 3 .2 3 F 9 2 F 6 3 .0 N 8 5 2 5 81C C . 0 0 7 516 0 B. 

852581CC. 007517030ep ama d.1.epa.gov> 

In.Rep1y.T o: < 0F 6 D 8 C14 0 3.2 3 F 9 2 F 6 3.ON 8 5 2 5 81CC.0 0 7 516 0 B - 

8525 81CC.0 0 7 517 030 epamai1.epa.gov> 


A c c e p t.I.i a n g u a g e : 

en. 

C o n t e n t - L a n g u a g e 

: en 

X.MS- 

.Has-Attach: 

yes 

X-MS- 

-TNEF-Correl 

at or 

MIME- 

.Version: 1. 

0 

X-Or: 

L gin a ting.-IP 

r 

: i 2 


crov> 

ZJ 


X - MS - Pub 1..i c T r a f f i c T yp e : Ema i 1 

X - M i c r o s o f t - E x c h a n g e - D i a g n o s t i c s : 


1;MWHPRO 9 MB14 6 9;35:oho4378OssKgKavwYsbNgBzIg/jI3e9vx9fA24sOpsOXmf5fPN6ZVdFftonY 


8 MS 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005562-00004 





























































































































X.MS-Exchange.Antispam 

X.F o r e f r o n t.An t i s p am.Rc- 

SFV:SKI;SCL: 


-•< c: * q q n q • q ° 


SRFA.Diagnostic 

sport: 

1;SFV:SKI;SFS:;DIR:INB;SFP:;SCL:. 

1; SRVR: MWHPRO 9MB 1197 ; H : MWHPRO 9MB 14 6 9. namprdO 9 . prod. outlook. com; FPR: ; SPF : None; LANG: eri; 
Return. Path : dravis.samantha@epa.gov 

X.M S ••••••• O f f i c e 3 6 5.F i 1 ter i n g - Corre 1 ation-Id: 739 f c 3 b d - db f 1 - 4 6 b 3-cef 0.0 8 d5 2 2 3b 4 7 d 6 

X.M ic r o s o f t-Antis pam: 

UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID: (22001) (4534020) (4602075) (4627115) (2017 030311330 81) ( 


X. M i c r o s o f t. E x c h a n g e.D i a g n o s t i c s : 

1;MWHPRO9MB1197;3:12dlKGWNEa7kXdls721czGEB/lncKQFLqz5J4GlTWckMIelsNaZR+w7 cVhOoIv. 
X-MS-Traf ficTypeDiagnosti c: MWHPRO9MB1197 : 

X-Exchange-Antispam.Report.Test: UriScan:(229425074694992); 

X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: 

BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID: (100000700101) (100105000095) (100000701101) (100105300095) (1000 
X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 

1;MWHPRO9MB1197;4:zlnNwp5Uu3RFphoTCXiZNJgYeLHimXg/vFd65DiMBDwg0LyKXLlvLMTRRQ8QU3; 
X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 

1; MWHPRO9MB1197 ; 5 : eMnkW++qC+j Y8Gn/GyMgGP 
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:0 

Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Nov 2017 21:47:14.5218 


P/qlVHbtRln7MJi+wnOo+3paNjBHCsTA+p] 


c* 

D 

.)\/r a 


(UTC) 

.MS Exchange CrossTenant FromEntityHeader: Hosted 

.MS.Excha nge.C r o s s T ena nt.Id: 8 8b 3 7 8b 3-6 7 4 8-4 8 6 7-a c f 9-7 6 aa cbe ca 6 a 7 

E x c han g e.C r o s s T e na n t.Network-Message-Id: 7 3 9 f c 3bd.db f1.4 6b 3.c e f 0 

08d5223b47d6 


X 
X 

X-MS 


X M S E x c h a n g e T r a n s p o r t C r o s s T enantHeade r s S t: a mp e d: MW H P R 0 9 MB 1197 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005562-00005 






































































To: Owens, Nicole[Owens.Nicole@epa.gov] 

Cc: Samantha Dravis[Dravis.Samantha@epamail.epa.gov]; Brittany 

Bolen[Bolen.Brittany@epamail.epa.gov]; Kenny, Shannon[Kenny.Shannon@epa.gov]; Kime, 
Robin[Kime.Robin@epa.gov]; Pritchard, Eiieen[Pritchard.Eileen@epa.gov]; Nickerson, 
William[Nickerson.William@epa.gov]; Corrales, Mark[Corrales.Mark@epa.gov]; Curry, 

Bridgid[Curry.Bridgid@epa.gov]; Schiilo, Bruce[Schillo.Bruce@epa.gov]; Adams, 

Darryl[Adams. Darryl@epa.gov] 

From: Dravis, Samantha 

Sent: Thur 11/2/2017 9:47:14 PM 

Subject: Re: OP Policy Review - ORPM Office Director Approval Notification (SAN 6402 - NPRM / 

Administrator's Signature / Review #1 / OW - 'Idaho UIC Class II Well Program - Voluntary Primacy 
Withdrawal') 

Approved 

Sent from my iPhone 


On Nov 2, 2017, at 5:19 PM, Nicole Owens < Owens.Nicole@,epamail.epa.gov > wrote: 


Approval for Administrator's Signature: NPRM - 'Idaho UIC Class II Well Program - Voluntary 
Primacy Withdrawal' 

This Policy Review is ready for OP Associate Administrator Approval. 

Link to Policy Review Documents <doclink.gif> 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005563-00001 



From: Dominguez, Alexander 

Location: 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (North) - Room 1332 WJCN 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Small Refineries (re: RFS hardship exemption) 

Start Date/Time: Tue 8/15/2017 2:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Tue 8/15/2017 3:00:00 PM 

houseFYISe&wreportlanquaqe.pdf 


Location: 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (North) - Room 1332 WJCN 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your right as 
you exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call 202-564-1016 or 202-578-5985 


Request: 

A coalition of small refineries would like to discuss the RFS hardship exemption. 


Attendees: 

To follow 


Contact: 

Susan Butler 
Capitol Resources LLC 
915 Prince Street 
Alexandria, VA 22314 
(703)739-5860 (office) 
(703)298-2826 (cell) 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005565-00001 



To: Gunasekara, Mandy[Gunasekara.Mandy@epa.gov]; Dravis, 

Samanthafdravis. samantha@epa.gov] 

Cc: Patrick Kelly[kellyp@api.org] 

From: Will Hupman 

Sent: Tue 4/25/2017 6:43:46 PM 

Subject: Thank You 

2017 RFS API Comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-00Q4.pdf 

A Preliminary Assessment of RIN Market Dynamics, RIN Prices, and Their E....pdf 


Mandy & Samantha - Thank you so much for taking the time to meet with our group this 
afternoon on the 2018 RVOs and the Point of Obligation issue. I wanted circle back on 
a few specific items that you requested from the meeting. If there’s any additional 
information or materials that we can provide (or questions to answer), I hope you’ll let 
me know. Thanks again, Will 


1) Waiver Authority ( see first attachment, “2017 RFS API...’) - As mentioned, our 
comments include discussion of the waiver authorities at your disposal. Specifically, on 
pages 3 & 4, our comments reference the justification of your waiver based on 
inadequate domestic supply as well as the encouragement of waiver usage based on 
severe economic harm. 


2) RIN Prices and the Marketplace - (see second attachment and link below) - The 
second attachment, “A Preliminary Assessment...” is from EPA’s Dallas Burkholder in 
May 2015 and discusses the impact of RIN prices on retail fuel prices and related 
factors. On page 3, Burkholder states: “The higher market prices for petroleum fuels 
with RIN obligations relative to those without RIN obligations suggest that obligated 
parties are generally recovering their RIN costs in the price of the petroleum fuels they 
produce. Merchant refiners, who largely purchase separated RINs to meet their RFS 
obligations, should not therefore be disadvantaged by higher RIN prices, as they are 
recovering these costs in the sale price of their products.” On pages 28 - 30, he 
explores in more detail the RIN Price Impacts on Merchant and Integrated Refiners. 


Linked here: http://web.mit.edii/knittel/www/papers/RIN_latest.pdf is a July 2015 study with 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005567-00001 



analytical data from professors at MIT, Univ. of Michigan, and Harvard entitled “The 
Pass-Through of RIN Prices to Wholesale and Retail Fuels under the Renewable Fuel 
Standard.” 

On page 19, the authors conclude that “Taken together, these results support the view 
that RIN prices are passed through quickly, but not immediately, into the wholesale 
prices of obligated fuels.” 


Will Hupman 


Relations I American Petroleum Institute 


desk: 202-682-8396 i cell: 202-615-7192 1 hupmanw@apLorq 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005567-00002 




Table of Contents 


I. The EPA has Clear Authority to Adjust EISA’s Volumes Using the Cellulosic and General Waiver 
Provisions 

II. Total Renewable Volume for 2017 

A. Conventional Renewable Volume 

1. Significant E0 Demand 

2. Limited E85 Demand 

a) E85 Sales From Existing Infrastructure 

b) Consumer Behavior 

c) State Incentive Programs Have not Worked 

d) Fuel Infrastructure Constraints and Flexible Fuel Vehicles 

(1) High E85 Retail Infrastructure Costs 

(2) Small Business Impacts 

(3) Flexible Fuel Vehicles (FFVs) 

3. El 5 Issues 

a) El5 Incompatibility with Existing Vehicle Fleet 

b) El 5 Incompatibility with Existing Fuel Retail Infrastructure 

c) Liability Concerns 

4. Conventional Renewable Imports 

B. Advanced Biofuels Volume 

C. Cellulosic Biofuels Volume and Concerns with EPA’s Methodologies 

1. Estimated Liquid Cellulosic Biofuel Production 

2. Individual Facility Production Range 

3. 25 th Percentile Model For Forecasting Production By “New” Facilities 

4. 50 th Percentile Model For Forecasting Production By “Established” Facilities 

5. Additional Issues 

6. CNG/LNG Cellulosic Biofuel Production Estimate 

D. Total Renewable Volume 

III. Biomass-Based Diesel (BBD) Standard For 2018 

A. Lead Time Requirement 

B. Six Factor Analyses 

C. Cost Impacts of Proposed Standards 

D. Implications of BBD Requirements within the Advanced Standards 

E. Feedstock Availability 

F. Vehicle Constraints and Consumer Preference 

IV. Point of RFS Obligation 

V. Cellulosic Waiver Credits 

VI. E15RVP waiver 

VII. El5 Labeling 

VIII. RIN Carryover 


1 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005568-00001 



I. The EPA has Clear Authority to Adjust E ISA’s Volumes Using the Cellulosic and 

General Waiver Provisions 

EPA correctly observes that the Proposed Rule comes at a time when “the market transitions 
from mild resistance to obstacles that are more difficult to overcome, particularly with regard to 
infrastructure and relative pricing for higher ethanol blends such as E15 and E85.” 1 EPA also 

recognizes that there are various “constraints associated with supplying renewable fuels to the 
vehicles and engines that c an use them.” “ EPA correctly concludes that these constraints and 
obstacles prevent the Agency from imposing the renewable fuel volumes requirements in CAA 
section 21 l(o)(2)(B) and justify the use of EPA’s waiver authorities to provide a measure of 
relief from those requirements. EPA must establish RFS volumetric standards based on available 
projections of the use of transportation fuel and the corresponding ability of the fuels market to 
utilize renewable fuel. It must also consider the infeasibility of blending ethanol into gasoline at 
levels above 10 percent by volume given that most vehicles on the road today cannot bum blends 
with higher volumetric percentages of ethanol. “Ethanol faces demand, distribution system, and 
regulatory challenges that ma ke it difficult to increase its use as a motor fuel regardless of its 
source.’” The documented overall decline in gasoline consumption in the United States, 
particularly since the enactment of EISA, has exacerbated the problems presented by the E10 
blendwall, making an exercise of EPA’s waiver authority both appropriate and necessary. API 
provides a detailed discussion on the legal authority supporting EPA’s exercise of its waiver 
authorities in the context of the Proposed Rule in Appendix A, infra. 

A. EPA’s Waiver Based on Its Cellulosic Waiver Authority Is Fully Justified 
and Permissible. 

In its Proposed Rule, EPA properly notes that CAA section 21 l(o)(7)(D) “provides that if the 
projected volume of cellulosic biofuel production is less than the minimum applicable volume in 
the statute, EPA shall reduce the applicable volume of cellulosic biofuel required to the projected 
volume available.” 4 Next, EPA appropriately recognized that CAA section 201 l(o)(7)(D) “also 
provides EPA with the authority to reduce the applicable volume of total renewable fuel and 
advanced biofuel in years where it reduces the applicable volume of cellulosic biofuel.” The 
D.C. Circuit has confirmed EPA’s broad discretion to reduce the statutory volumes using this 
waiver auth ority: “In the absence of any express or implied statutory directive to consider 
particular factors, EPA reasonably concluded that it enjoys broad discretion regarding whether 
and in what circumstances to reduce the advanced biofuel and total renewable fu el volumes 
under the cellulosic biofuel waive r provision.” Monroe v. EPA , 750 F.3d 909, 915 (D.C. Cir. 
2014). 

The volume of cellulosic renewable fuel listed in EISA for 2017 is 5.5 billion gallons. Based on 
what it believes will be produced, EPA propo ses a cellulosic volume of 312 million gallons for 


1 NPRM at 34790. 

2 NPRM at 34784. 

' Statement of Howard Gruenspecht Deputy Administrator Energy Information Administration 
U.S. Department of Energy Before the Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on 
Energy and Power United States House of Representatives. June 22, 2016. 

4 NPRM at 34785. 


2 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005568-00002 



2017. Thus, EPA is adjusting the cellulosic mandate listed in EISA by 5.188 billion gallons and 
can reduce the advanced and general renewable statutory volumes by up to 5.188 billion gallons 
each using th e cellulosic waiver authority. 5 EPA has proposed to use this broad discretionary 
cellulosic waiver authority to reduce the statutory volume for advanced biofuel by 5.0 billion 
gallons. Similarly, EPA proposes to reduce the total renewable fuel mandate by an initial 

increment of 5.0 billion gallons for 2017 using the cellulosic waiver authority. 

As discussed in the section below, EPA also proposes to use its general waiver authority to 
reduce further the applicable volume of total renewable fuel by a n additional 0.2 billion gallons 

n 

in 2017. We note that EPA actually needs to rely only on its general waiver authority to waive 
12 million gallons of the general renewable volumes, as EPA is proposing to reduce the 
cellulosic volumes by 5.188 billion gal Ions, and can therefore use the cellulosic waiver authority 
to waive up to 5.188 billion gallons of the general renewable volume. We do not believe the 
statute limits EPA’s authority to reduce the general renewable category to the full extent that the 
cellulosic category is reduced even if EPA does not reduce the advanced category to the same 
extent. EPA should, therefore, rely on its broad cellulosic waiver authority to the greatest extent 
possible. The general renewable fuel producers are essentially a rguing that general renewable 
fuels should backfill the cellulosic space even though cellulosic renewable fuels would have 
provided a 60% GHG reduction and most general renewable fuels do not guarantee any GHG 
reduction at all due to EISA’s grandfathering clause for general renewable fuels. 

B. EPA’s Waiver Based on I nadequate Domestic Supply Is Fully Justified and 

Permissible. 


The Clean Air Act grants EPA two types of general waiver authorities with respect to the RFS 
program: EPA is authorized to waive statutory RFS requirements based on a determination that 
(1) “implementation of the requirement would severely harm the economy or environment of a 
State, a region, or the United States,” ’ or “there is an inadequate domestic supply.” The NPRM 
proposes to grant a general waiver for 0.2 billion gallons of total renewable fuel in 2017. EPA’s 
grant of waivers based on a determination that there is an inadequate domestic supply is a 
permissible interpretation of the statute, and fully within EPA’s authority. 



EPA’s Waiver Should Also Be Based On the Grounds That the Statutory 

Volumes Would Severely Harm the Economy. 


EPA should also base its waivers on a determination that requiring compliance with the full 
statutory volumes would cause severe harm to the ec onomy. Although the statute does not 
require EPA to waive the statutory renewable fuel requirements on both grounds, it is well 
settled that a regulation is arbitrary and capricious if it “entirely fail[s] to consider an important 


5 As discussed in more depth below, EPA should set the cellulosic mandate at no more than 200 
million gallons for 2017 and can therefore reduce the advanced and general renewable categories 
by 5.3 billion gallons solely using the cellulosic waiver authority. 

6 NPRM at 34786. 

1 Id. 

8 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)(7)(A)(i). 

9 Id. § 7545(o)(7)(A)(ii). 

3 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005568-00003 



aspect of the problem.” 10 Whether RFS mandates will result in severe harm to the economy 
undoubtedly is an important aspect of the problem. Accordingly, EPA should consider both 
statutory grounds for granting a general waiver, and should determine that both support a general 
waiver for 2017. 

In its comments on EPA’s Proposed Rule for 2014 -2016, API submitted extensive evidence, 

including a major economic study by NERA, that a general waiver is needed to avoid severe 
harm to the national economy. 11 

In its response to comments d ocument regarding the 2014 -2016 RFS, EPA asserted that “it is 
unnecessary to evaluate concerns that implementation of the statutory applicable volumes would 

cause severe economic harm, since EPA is exercising its waiver authorities on other grounds to 

12 

substantially reduce the statutory volumes.” 

API respectfully disagrees. Whether or not to exercise its waiver authority on the additional 
ground that lack of a general waiver will cause severe economic harm is an “important aspect of 
the problem” that EPA should consider. 

Accordingly, API is resubmitting the 2015 NERA study as Appendix E , which was in turn an 
updated version of a 2012 NERA study API submitted in connection with EPA’s initial 2014 

13 

proposed RFS rule. 

EPA is not free to ignore this evidence on a critical issue. 

II. Total Renewable Fuel Volume for 2017 

EPA’s methodology for setting volume requirements when its waiver authority has been 
exercised should be consistent and transparent for stakeholders. The statutory volumes are 
unattainable due in part to the limitations on the volume of ethanol that can be used. It is 
appropriate for EPA to determine a total ethanol volume, and adjust the standards downward to 
the extent marketplace realities limit expected ethanol use in 2017. 


10 Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 463 U.S. 29,43 
(1983). 

11 See Comments of the Am. Fuel & Petrochem. Mffs. and the Am. Petroleum Inst., Docket ID 

Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111, EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0479 (July 27, 2015). 

12 

' EPA, Renewable Fuel Standards for 2014, 2015 and 2016, and the Biomass -Based Volume for 
2017: Response to Comments , at 116 (Nov. 2015) (EPA-420-R-15-024). 

13 A more detailed discussion of the NERA studies and the severe economic harm analysis can 
be found in Appendix B at 1-4. 

14 See Delaware Dep’t of Natural Res. & Envtl. Control v. EPA , 785 F.3d 1,15 (D.C. Cir. 2015) 

(EPA must respond to “relevant and significant” comments); Reytblatt v. U.S. Nn clear 

Regulatory Comm’n, 105 F.3d 715, 722 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (agencies “must respond in a reasoned 
manner to [comments] that raise significant problems”). 

4 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005568-00004 


A. Conventional Renewable Volume 

Due to the limitations of the blendwall, EPA should set a total et hanol volume of not more than 
9.7 percent of gasoline demand. As explained in the sections that follow, this is due to: 

A. Significant EO demand, calculated at 5.3 billion gallons by EIA for 2015 or 3.8% of 2015 
gasoline demand 

B. Limited E85 demand of less than 100 million gallons according to EIA, equivalent to less 
than 0.1% of gasoline demand 

C. Limited El5 demand 

API recommends that the 2017 RFS Standards should not require more than 13.92 billion gallons 
of ethanol. This volume is based on the assumption t hat the total gasoline pool in 2017 should 
contain 9.7 volume % ethanol on average, plus an allowance for the small amount of ethanol 
contained in E85. We believe the volume of El 5 in 2017 will be negligible and will not 
contribute significantly to the to tal volume of ethanol consumed in the market. The calculation 
of 13.92 billion gallons of ethanol appears in the table below: 


Calculate 3017 Ethanol Consumption based on 9.7% blendwall target 


2QI7 Gasoline Demand 


■ MMbpd ''from May 2016 STEO 


142.72-8gai/yr 


oil>/plumes n BmMil 


Gasoline Volume J 142.72 

Ethanol In gasoline j 9.70% 

13.84 


E15 Volume 

BIBBII 



Ethanol in E15 f 15% 

0 


ESS Volume | T77 

Ethanol In ESS j 74% 

0.074 


fetal Ethanol Consumption 

13.92 

Sgal/yr 


The methodology using the 9.7% blendwall target was previously recommended by AFPM and 
API in comments to the 2014, 2015, and 2016 RFS NPRM. We determined that an average 
value of 9.7 volume % ethanol is a target that adequately covers the typical volumes of E10 and 
E0 in the marketplace. The 9.7% target reflects the lowest volume of E0 observed in the 
marketplace (3% of the to tal gasoline pool) in recent years. Using a 9.7% target is a simple, 
practical, and consistent method that acknowledges the presence of E0 in the market but does not 
require a quantification of the annual E0 volume and the corresponding adjustment in the 
blendwall target. In fact, we believe that the 9.7% target is generous and will usually understate 
the volume of E0 in the marketplace. This methodology is a reasonable balance between 
increasing the allowable content of ethanol in the gasoline pool whil e keeping the market away 
from the edge of the blendwall. 


5 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005568-00005 





































































1 . 


Significant EO Demand 


EO is demanded by boaters, small equipment and non -road users, motorcyclists, and by vehicle 
owners. EPA should treat these consumer groups equally in setting standards that allow them 
access to the EO they demand. While EPA acknowledges that EO demand constrains the volume 
of ethanol that can be supplied to the market, 15 the agency only quantifies recreational marine 
use of EO and does not recognize other legitimate consumer demands for this fuel. In fact, EPA 
dismisses these other demands in stating tha t the RFS program is increasing renewable fuel 
supply by incentivizing the transition from EO to E10 and higher ethanol blends. In reality, there 
is ample incentive to supply E10, and a final rule that dismisses the real demand for EO risks 
triggering the negative economic consequences of the ethanol blendwall. We do not believe 
Congress intended for the RFS to eliminate the option of EO for highway use as EPA implies. 

EPA needs to account for the significant demand for ethanol free EO gasoline in sett ing the final 
2017 RFS standards. In comments to the proposed 2014 RFS, API and AFPM provided a 
methodology for determining EO demand based on available EO data . The two trade groups also 
suggested that improved data collection would enhance EPA’s abilit y to project demand. EPA 
dismissed the API/AFPM assessment of EO demand in setting the final 2014-2016 RFS, noting 
in the response to comments “we do not believe that recent supply of EO is on the order of 3% of 
the gasoline pool.” The final 2016 stan dard presumed 124 million gallons of E0 would be 
supplied in 2016, and EPA did not respond to critiques from API or stakeholders in the boating 
community to calculation of E0 demand at marinas that was provided in a memo to the docket in 
that mle covering the 2014 - 2016 RFS standards. 

In May 2016 EIA released an estimate of 5.3 billion gallons for total E0 usage in 2015, 16 which 
was about 3.8% of the 2015 gasoline demand. EIA’s assessment demonstrates that EPA’s 
estimate of 200 million gallons of E0 nationwide demand is wrong : it amounts to only 4% of 
EIA’s estimate. It is also less than the E0 demand reported by the Iowa Department of Revenue 
for Iowa alone. In determining the 2017 RFS standards, EPA should use the same 
methodology outlined in the referenced May 2016 EIA memo for developing E0 demand 
estimates. 


2. Limited E85 Demand 

Stated simply, based on the information provided in th is Proposed Rule and historical data of 
E85 demand, it is not reasonable to expect any significant increase in E85 sales in 2017; the 
market does not demand E85 fuel . Relying on the mere possibility that demand for E85 might 
increase in 2017 is a risky approach for obligated parties, consumers and the economy and EPA 
should not set standards based on this assumption. 


15 Proposed Rule (page 34790) 

16 Today in Energy, Almost All U.S. Gasoline is Blended with 10% Ethanol, May 4, 2016. 

1 7 

“2015 Retailers Fuel Gallons Annual Report,” Kathy Harpole, Research and Analysis 
Division, Iowa Department of Revenue, April 2016 

6 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005568-00006 



a) E85 Sales from Existing Infrastructure 

API has commented extensively on E85 demand in comments submitted in response to the (a) 
proposed rule for the 2014 Standards for the Renewable Fuel Standard Program published on 

November 29, 2013 and (b) proposed rule for the 2014, 2015, and 2016 Renewable Fuel 

18 

Standards and 2017 Biomass-Based Diesel Volume standard published on June 10, 2015. 

EPA developed estimates of current and historical volumes of nationwide E85 consumption 
based on linear regression analyses of E85 sales volumes obtained from five states (MN, CA, IA, 
NY and ND) as a function of the price of E85 relative to gasoline as determined from data drawn 
from www.e85prices.com. (a website maintained by the Renewable Fuels Association), and 
normalized by estimates of E85 station counts taken from the DOE Alternative Fuels Data 
Center. This methodology (and related results) is outlined in a series of EPA memos to the 
Docket. 19 20 21 22 23 

As EPA acknowledged in its analysis, the use of data from E85prices.com is fraught with issues. 
The data: (a) represent voluntary contributions by individuals, (b) are not collected consistently 
over time, and (c) are not obtained consistently in proportion to the number of retail stations in a 
given state/geographic area. This contributes to a significant amount of uncertainty in the 
individual linear least-squares regressions that EPA developed for each of the 5 states included in 
its analysis, which is made evident by the extremely low R -squared coefficient statistics (which 
ranged from 0.004 to 0.33 for 4 of the 5 states) that accompany these results. Based on these 
poor statistical results, the methodology is not sound to be used in rulemaki ng and should be 
dismissed by EPA. 

Likewise, it is not clear that the five states which supplied the E85 sales volume data used in 
EPA’s analysis collected this information in a similar and consistent manner. For instance, the 
time periods encompassed in each of the five data sets varied from state to state, and some (e.g., 
Iowa) were provided on a quarterly (as opposed to monthly) basis. Furthermore, the extent to 
which incentives provided by some states for E85 usage may have introduced a bias to the data 
employed in the EPA analysis is unclear. 

In short, the disparate nature of the underlying data used by EPA lead us to question the accuracy 
and validity of the methodology developed by the Agency to estimate nationwide E85 volumes. 

EPA states in t he preamble to the current Proposed Rule that it has estimated E85 demand for 
2014 and 2015 to be 150 million gallons and 166 million gallons, respectively. EPA further 


18 See EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0479-5293 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948 

19 David Korotney, EPA, Correlating E85 Consumption Volumes with E85 Price , EPA-HO- 
OAR-2015-0111 

20 David Korotney, EPA, Estimating Achievable Volumes ofE85, EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-004 

21 David Korotney, Preliminary Estimate ofE85 Consumption in 2015, EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-004 
" David Korotney, Estimates of the number of retail stations offering E85 , EPA-HQ-OAR-2015- 
0111 

23 Dallas Burkholder, Estimating E85 Consumption in 2013 and 2014, EPA-H-OAR-2016-004 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005568-00007 


states: “ In deriving the 2016 volume requirements we estimated that E85 volumes would 

increase to 200 million gallons, though we also said that 400 million gallons was possible under 
highly favorable though unlikely conditions. ” As we have noted in the earlier comments on the 
2014, 2015, and 2016 RFS standards, we believe that the approach used by EPA to estimate 
nationwide E85 consumption leads to a substantial understatement of this volume relative to the 
statistics provided by EIA. 

The EIA data table U.S. Refinery and Blender Production of Motor Gasoline, Finished, 

24 

Conventional, Greater than Ed55 (ethanol blends above 55%) shows the volume of E85 blends 
distributed from bulk terminals. And the EIA data table Renewable Fuels & Oxygenate Plant 
Net Production shows E85 distributed directly from ethanol production facilities. These two 
data series, summed together (as illustrated in the figure below), provide the most reliable 
estimate of national E85 consumption. 


O 

15 

Q 

o 


100.0 

90.0 

80.0 

70.0 

60.0 

50.0 

40.0 

30.0 

20.0 

10.0 

0.0 


E85 Supply 


H E85 Supplied by 
Ethanol 
Production 
Facilities 


■ 


E85 Supplied by 
Fuel Terminals 


2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 


Source: EIA Data 


A comparison of EPA estimates of E85 volumes (as reported in the preambles to recent RFS 
proposed rulemakings) with the EIA data indicates that the Agency has consistently overstated 
this metric by about 91-101% for the past three years (2013 - 2015). (See the figure below.) 


24 http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=M EPMOCAG55 YPR NUS 
MB6L&f=A 

25 http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=M EPMOF YNP NUS MBB 
L&f=A 

8 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005568-00008 










This further underscores our concerns regarding the accuracy of the Agency’s E85 methodology 
and raises questions about the credibility of EPA’s projections of E85 demand for 2016 and later 
years. 

EPA is, however, not the only federal agency which has consistently missed the mark in 
projecting future volumes of E85. As shown in the chart below, previous EIA projections of E85 
demand have not materialized (and have, in fact, swung rather wildly in the near term). 



9 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005568-00009 
























All of the above being said, the nationwide volume of E85 demand currently represents a tiny 
fraction of total annual motor gasoline consumption (as shown by the chart below). E85 demand 
has been consistently less than 0.1% of annual gasoline demand according to EIA, and this 
fraction is not likely to grow significantl y in the near term for the reasons which we discuss in 
the following section. 


E85 less than 0.1% of gasoline demand 

10.00 «—« 0 . 10 % 



2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 IQ 

2016 


b) Consumer Behavior 

No definitive study shows why customers have not used E85 with greater frequency. Some 
short term and limited analysis (focused on a limited sample of states) by The Fuels Institute and 
EPA indicates that consumers would respond to E85 price adjustments that account for the lower 
E85 energy content (as shown by the graph below). As discussed above, there is no historical 
evidence to support any signifi cant consumer response to a differential between retail prices of 
E85 and motor gasoline. E85 volumes remain below one tenth of one percent of total annual 
gasoline demand. Whether an energy-adjusted differential between E85 and motor gasoline price 
is indeed an accurate predictor of consumer behavior is therefore uncertain. Testimony provided 
by a gasoline marketer at EPA’s Public Hearing in Kansas City, KS on June 25, 2015 indicated 
that demand declined despite E85 being priced 25% below E10. This woul d suggest that 
consumers may also be considering “convenience cost” in choosing whether to purchase E85. In 
general, E85 reduces fuel economy and range by about 20 -30 percent,” according to the May 

2010 EPA Technical Highlights paper, “E85 and Flex Fuel V ehicles.” 27 If E85 were sold at an 
energy-equivalent price, operators of FFVs would still be inconvenienced because would have to 
stop to refuel 30 percent more often than if they used gasoline. 


Of 

_1 http://www.eia.gov/biofuels/workshop/presentations/2013/pdf/presentation-04-032013.pdf 
" http://www.epa.gov/oms/renewablefuels/420fl 001 Oa.pdf 

10 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005568-00010 



































Source: AAA (gasprices.aaa.com) 

c) State Incentive Programs Have not Worked 

The proposed rule states that E85 volumes can increase from 200 million gallons per year to 
nearly 400 million gallons per year citing the Korotney Memorandum to the Docket. * The 
proposal also states that these increases are “possible if the market can overcome constraints 
associated with E85 pricing at retail and consumer responses to those prices.”' 10 Yet the Korotney 
memo also states, “Since reaching 400 million gallons of E85 in 2017 woul d require a 

confluence of optimum conditions based on the information currently available, and our efforts 
to quantify the actions needed require considerable speculation as to how consumer responses to 
E85 price discounts may be affected by E85 marketing strategies, signage, and consumer 
education, 400 million gallons of E85 appears to be highly unlikely in 2017.” 

The rule fails to account for the significant incentives that have been offered to every part of the 
supply chain for higher ethanol blend fuels . These incentives include significant loans, grants, 
rebates, tax incentives, and other incentives that have been available to higher level ethanol 
blended fuels more than a decade without any meaningful increase in the demand for the fuel. As 
described below, these incentive programs intended to increase the sale of E85 have not proven 
successful and the incentives from the USDA’s Biofuel Infrastructure Partnership (BIP) are only 


78 Proposed rule, page 34787 

29 “Estimating achievable volumes of E85,” Korotney, David, U.S. EPA, OTAQ, EPA Air 
Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0004 
' Proposed rule, page 34800 

11 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005568-00011 






































the latest in a long line of programs that to date have not shown any meaningful change in E85 
sales. 

In 2009 the National Renewable Energy Laboratory completed a study estimating the achievable 

31 

volumes of E85." That study remains relevant today. It states that, 

Historically, the U.S. Department of Energy) (DOE) Clean Cities Program has been the 
chief federal catalyst for the deployment ofE85 infrastructure. Between 1999 and 2006, 
Clean Cities provided $11 million in grants to 33 states to install biofuels infrastructure. 

U.S. state governments collectively offer scores of financial incentives and_ favorable 
regulatory policies that promote the use of alternative fuels. These programs include 
industry recruitment incentives, corporate tax credits, net metering policies, grants, loan 
programs, rebate programs, personal tax ere dits, sales tax exemptions, property tax 
exemptions, and production incentives, [emphasis added] 

The report goes on to say: 

Sixty percent of states are significantly invested in supporting E85 through grants, loans, 
or tax incentives for E85 infrastructu re... Certain states have provided funding through 
grant programs to install E8 5 dispensers, including blender pumps, at refueling stations. 
[These states include Michigan, Iowa, South Dakota, Illinois, Tennessee, Ohio, and New 
York]. 

[The report identifies states that provided tax credits for fueling stations including, South 
Carolina, Ohio, Idaho, and Michigan]. 

A review of the U.S. Department of Energy - Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, 

32 

Alternative Fuels Data Center ' report on incentives related to ethanol shows that these financial 
enticements continue to this day and include not only the retail gasoline station but biofuel 
production facility grants, tax exemptions and loans, state requirements to acquire alternative 
fuel vehicles (e.g., E85) and significant tax incentives for the retail and bulk price for E85. Iowa 
uses many of these tools to facilitate the sale of products with greater than 10% ethanol. 
However, the sale of high -ethanol fuels remains incredibly low. In contrast the sale of fuels 
without ethanol, in the heart of the Com Belt, is very high. 

PMAA’s written testimony, intended to be delivered at the June 9 hearing in Kansas City, 
provides an example of a failed attempt to sell higher ethanol blend fuels. 

... [The speaker’s] family business also has invested in legal infrastructure for higher 
blends. At that location where we spent over $100,000 to do so we averaged 58 gallons a 
day of blends over E10 in 2015. A few years ago, the North Dakota Department of 


31 “E85 Dispenser Study,” K. Moriarty et. al., Technical Report NREL/TP-7A2-47172, 
December 2009 

'' Example link to “Minnesota Laws and Incentives for Ethanol,” 

http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/laws/ETH/MN 

12 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005568-00012 



Commerce had a Blender Pum p Program. A follow up survey was conducted by the 

North Dakota Petroleum Marketers Association which found that after the “commitment 
to offer higher blends ” conditions were met, that 64 percent of respondents had 

discontinued or planned on discontinuing the sale of E85 and other higher blends. 

The 2015 Iowa Fuels report published in April 2016 by the Iowa Department of Revenue 
shows that contrary to the EPA’s belief that additional incentives and marketing techniques for 
E85 will create consumer demand, the consumer actually prefers non-ethanol gasoline. As shown 
in the Table below, non-ethanol gasoline (E0) sales in Iowa accounted for 14% of the total 

volume of gasoline and higher level ethanol blends. On the contrary, sales of fuels with greater 
than 10% ethanol (El 5 plus E20 plus E85) accounted for only 1.4% of the volume of gasoline 
and ethanol/gasoline sales. As shown here, contrary to EPA’s estimate of E0 demand of only 200 
million gallons for the whole country, the sale of E0 in Iowa alone accounts for 220.4 million 
gallons. 


2015 Iowa Fuel Sales 


Fuel 

Sales as p ercent of total 
gasoline and 

ethanol/gasoline sales 

Volume (Million gallons) 

E0 

14% 

220.4 

E85 and £20* 

1% 

15.7 

E15** 

0.4% 

6.2 

Total ethanol share of fuel sales 

9.2% 

143.8 

Total sales gasoline and ethanol 

100% 

1,561.7 


* E85 = 13.2 million gal. and E20 = 2.5 million gal. 

** El5 is defined by the State as E15 and E15 flex (El5 is sold in summer as Ethanol Flex Fuel) 


d) E85 Fuel Infrastructure Constraints and Flexible Fuel Vehicles 


The E85 infrastructure required to facilitate E85 consumption includes primarily the terminals, 
the retail stations, and the vehicles. We will focus most of our comments on the retail 
challenges. 


(1) High E85 Retail Infrastructure Costs 


The co st of installing E85 retail infrastructure is high. In a letter to Chairman Upton and 
Ranking Member Pallone, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, the Petroleum 
Marketers Association of America (PMAA) states, “The problem for underground tank owners is 
99 percent of existing equipment currently in the ground is not legally certified as compatible 


Q O 

' “2015 Retailers Fuel Gallons Annual Report,” Kathy Harpole, Research and Analysis 
Division, Iowa Department of Revenue, April 2016 

13 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005568-00013 























with ethanol blends higher than 10 percent.” ' 4 In the July 15, 2015 rule on underground storage 
tanks, EPA discusses existing systems and states: 

EPA thinks t here are many cases where some equipment or components of UST 
systems in the ground as of 2014 are not compatible with newer fuels. Unless 
owners and operators specifically requested all of the UST system be compatible 
with higher ethanol or biodiesel Men ds, installers probably installed lower cost 
options for certain UST system equipment, such as a STP assembly, which may 
not be compatible with some newer fuels. 

This means most retail stations would have to undergo extensive retrofits to install or upgrade 
their existing equipment to become E85 -compatible and to be able to legally store and dispense 
E85. 

Three marketer associations - Petroleum Marketers Association of America (PMAA), Society of 
Independent Gasoline Marketers of America (SIGMA), and National Association of 
Convenience Stores (NACS) - have indicated that the cost of replacing USTs to facilitate E85 

O/T 

sales can exceed $200,000 per station.' 

In the above -referenced letter to Chairman Upton, PMAA further stated that it .. continues to 
maintain that E85 fueling pumps are unlikely to achieve meaningful growth without billions of 
dollars in government subsidies for installation of legally compatib le underground storage tank 
systems and dispensers capable of handling higher content ethanol blends. ” If a station is not in 
compliance with the applicable regulations and codes, marketers can face potential negative 
consequences. For example, they may have their bank loan called, may be denied an insurance 
claim and/or access to their state trust fund or face fines and legal action brought by the state or 
an individual. 

According to DOE data, there were 2990 E85 stations in the U.S. in 2015. Accordi ng to the 
DOE web site on June 30, 2016, there are 2,806 E85 stations in the U.S., a 6% decline from the 
2015 number. Although there was initial rapid growth in E85 stations (2005 - 2011), since 2010 
the year-to-year growth rate in the number of E85 stati ons has declined from 118% to 5% per 


34 

' PMAA letter to Chairman Upton and Ranking Member Pallone, House Committee on Energy 
and Commerce, May 1, 2015. 

http://www.pmaa.org/weeklvreview/attachments/PMAA Rebuttal RFA April 2015 FINAL%2 
O.pdf 

3 5 

' EPA rule, “Revising Underground Storage Tank Regulations - Revisions to Existing 
Requirements and New Requirements for Secondary Containment and Operator Training,” 80 
Federal Register 41604 (7/15/15). 

36 SIGMA and NACS letter to Mr. John Podesta, Counselor to the President (July 10, 2014); 
PMAA letter to Chairman Upton and Ranking Member Pallone, House Committee on Energy 
and Commerce (May 1, 2015). 

14 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005568-00014 





figure below. 2016 may represent a decrease in the number of stations if the mid -year data point 
holds through year-end. 


2,000 


1,500 


m 1,000 


Source: DOE, Alternative Fuel Data Center 


E85 stations are not evenly distributed across the U.S., resulting in varied availability 


.. -—■I';-,,.';* 

| .;;;§ 




Small Business Impacts 


Retail station ownership is dominated by small businesses among which 58% are single store 

3 8 

owners; 1 As with any business, and even more so for small businesses, the owner must 


Alternative Fuels Data Center http://www.afdc.energ 


ov/data/10367 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005568-00015 



































carefully evaluate the economics involved. This includes product margin and volume forecasts 
(to gauge revenue) in addition to the investment costs needed to ensure all equipment and 
infrastructure meets regulatory requirements. The Fuels Institute publi cation referenced above 
also reported that E85 sales at the 304 locations from which they collected data averaged 2.8% of 
unleaded sales with a margin that was 20% lower than unleaded. 

If an existing station planned to introduce E85, one or more existing products might need to be 
replaced, depending on whether the plans included the addition of storage tanks and modification 
of dispensers. For example, a retailer might consider the marg ins associated with selling E85 
and compare those to the margins of the product that they were replacing. If the retailer were to 
replace the Premium fuel in a two -tank system with E85, then the ability to make Midgrade fuel 
would be lost due to the fact that Midgrade is made by blending Regular and Premium fuel at the 
pump. Therefore, the marketer must compare the potential margins of Premium and Midgrade 
together with the potential margin of E85. According to the Fuels Institute study, the 
“combination of margins and volume demonstrate that, over the time period being evaluated, 

E85 generated an average monthly profit of $789. This is less profitable than either premium 
($1,193/month) or midgrade ($ 1,466/month).” ' If the station were required to inves t in 

infrastmcture changes and replace its premium and/or midgrade gasolines, these average margins 
show that there would be no payback on such an investment. 

(3) Flexible Fuel Vehicles (FFVs) 

There are currently about 1 9.6 million FFVs in operation, representing about 8% of the nation’s 
light-duty car and taick fleet. 40 Incentives for the auto manufacturers to make more FFVs in the 
fuaire have been reduced beginning with the 2016 model year and are phased out for 2019 and 
later model years as a result of the new NHTSA/EPA CAFE/tailpipe GHG requirements. 41 
Consequently, the automakers have been reducing the number of FFV models available for 
consumers to purchase and growth in the number of FFVs on the road is expected to mo derate, if 
not decline. This expectation is reflected in the 2016 Annual Energy Outlook recently released 


2015 NACS Retail Fuels Report, p. 28 

http://www.nacsonline.com/YourBusiness/FuelsReports/2015/Documents/2015-NACS-Fuels- 
Re port full.pdf (“There are 127,588 convenience stores selling fuel in the United States, and 
these retailers sell an estimated 80% of all the fuel purchased in the country. Overall, 58% of the 
convenience stores selling fuel are single-store operators — more than 70,000 stores.”). 

39 

' Fuels Institute. E85 A Market Performance Analysis ana Forecast , 2014. Accessible at: 
http://fuelsinstitute.org/ResearchArticles/E85 AMarketPerformanceAnalvsisForecast.pdf 

40 Statement of Howard Gmenspecht Deputy Administrator Energy Information Administration 
U.S. Department of Energy Before the Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on 
Energy and Power United States House of Representatives. June 22, 2016. 

41 CAFE credits phase out in 2019, (P.L. 110-140, Section 109(a), 49 USC 32906(a)), and other 
CAFE, GHG (77 FR 62830-62831 and 63127-63130 (October 15, 2012)) and Tier 3 (40 CFR 
80.600.117 ) requirements reduce or eliminate automaker incentives to produce FFVs. 

16 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005568-00016 





by EIA which forecasts FFV sales to peak at -2 million units in 2017 and then fall back to 
current levels (~1.7 million units) by 2020. 42 

3. E15 Issues 

El 5 is not a viable solution to the E10 blendwall because E15 is incompatible with most of the 
existing vehicle fleet, the existing refueling infrastructure, and due to the potential liability issues 
associated with marketing the fuel. The hurdles to El 5 will remain for the scope of this 
rulemaking, and the foreseeable future as significant changes in infrastructure and the vehicle 
fleet will take many years. 

a) E15 Incompatibility with the Existing Vehicle Fleet 

No automobile manufacturer has stated that their model year 2011 and older gasoline vehicles 
are compatible with El 5. Manufacturers of many new vehicles today have stated that the use of 
El5 may damage vehicle engines and will not be covered under vehicle warranties. With an 
average vehicle age of 11.5 years, 43 the overwhelming majority of vehicles on the road today 
have neither been certified nor warranted for ethanol blends above 10 volume percent, and every 
automaker has declined to extend warranty coverage if its legacy vehicles are operated using 
E15. 44 E15 is only compatible with Flexible Fuel Vehicles (“FFVs”) and some newer model 
year cars specifically designed to accommodate E15. Together, ethanol blends exceeding 10 
volume-percent are only compatible with approximately 10 percent of vehicles on the road. 45 
Auto manufacturers’ models recommendations for El5 use in non -flex fuel vehicles as of 
January 2015 are summarized in the following chart: 


42 EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2016 Early Release , May 17, 2016 

43 IHS, Average Age of Light Vehicles in the U.S. Rises Slightly in 2015 to 11.5 years, IHS 
Reports. July 29, 2015 Accessed June 13, 2016 at http://press.ihs.com/press- 
release/automotive/average-age-light-vehicles-us-rises-slightly-2015-115-vcars-ihs-reports 

44 http://sensenbrenner.house.gov/UploadedFiles/El 5 Auto Responses.pdf 

45 Based on API analysis of retail sales data published by Automotive News, estimates of the 
stock of FFVs and total light-duty vehicles in operation published in the EIA Annual Energy 
Outlook 2015 Reference Case, and auto manufacturer reports of El 5-compatible vehicles by 
model year 

17 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005568-00017 



Manufacturer 


Model Year 



E15 Chart Sources: 



and auto company contacts 

1 Accord, Civic, Crosstour, CR-V, CR-Z, Insight, Odyssey, Pilot; Acura: ILK, MDX, 


RDX, RLX, but not TL, TSX, TSX Wagon 


2 Some owner manuals for 2014 and 2015 incorrectly stated that E15 was 
allowed. 


3 Avalon, Camry, Corolla, Highlander, iQ, Prsus, RAV-4, Scion tC, Sienna, Venza; 
Lexus: CT2G0H, ES350,68300/350, 6S450H, 15250,15350, LS460, RX350, RX450H, 
but not 4Runner, FJ Cruiser, Land Cruiser, Sequoia, Tacoma, Tundra, Vans; 
Lexus: IS250C, IS350C, 1ST, 6X460, LX570 
4 Not Chevrolet City Express 
5 Not FR-S, xB {model discontinued after 2015). 

6 Not Dodge Viper 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005568-00018 



























Reprinted below are excerpts from auto industry responses to Congressman Sensenbrenner’s 
questions about warranties for vehicles that have been operated with El5. 46 


Automaker 


Nissan 


Volkswagen 


BMW 


Chrysler 


C15 Warranty Excerpts from Sensenbrenner Response 



ms-Misi 


and later vehicles with E15 



program when E15 was considered 


The BMW Group engines and fuel supply systems can be damaged by 
misfueling with E15. 



damage or increased wear 




for the legacy fleet 


General Motors No 


Mercedes-Benz No 



use 


ofE15. 

Any ethanol blend above E10, including E15, will harm emission 
control systems in M-B engines 



concentrations of ethanol 



Mazda 


damaged 



wmkM 


Toyota vehicles 


The ethanol industry recommends following automobile owner’s manuals. The Renewable Fuels 
Association has made the following statement: “The best advice to give to consumers is for them 
to read their owner’s manuals and follow the advice of the company that provides the warranty, 
and built the product.” 47 As discussed here, only a small subset of the vehicle fleet in the U.S. is 
warranted by the automobile manufactures for El 5. 


46 Id. http://sensenbrenner.house.gov/UploadedFiles/El5 Auto Responses.pdf 

47 http://www.ethanolrfa.org/exehange/entrv/read-the-label/ 

19 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005568-00019 



























Tests conducted by the Coordinating Research Council (CRC) showed that ethanol 
concentrations in gasoline that exceed 10 percent can lead to engine and fuel system damage. 48 
Below is a description of the testing itself, the test results, and potential consequen ces that the 
test results support. 

El5 Fuel Systems and Engine Durability Testing and Results 49 

CRC began testing fuel pump and fuel level systems in 2008 using established testing procedures 
widely used within the automotive industry to evaluate and predict new product life. Tests were 
done on fuel pumps and fuel level systems on popular 2001 and newer gasoline light -duty 

vehicles with actual fleet penetration likely greater than 29 million vehicles in total. Fuel 
systems were evaluated using tw o testing protocols, a soak test (i.e., immersion) and an 
endurance test (i.e., “continuous” operation). 

To evaluate engine durability, CRC employed the testing protocols used by a participating OEM. 
The testing cycle was designed to simulate the accumul ation of approximately 100,000 miles. 
Eight pairs of popular 2001 and newer models were tested. 

The results of the testing demonstrate that not all vehicles tested showed damage, as some fuel 
systems and engines passed with no problems. However, the fue 1 pump systems on popular 
2001 and newer gasoline light -duty vehicles failed or exhibited other adverse effects during 
testing on El 5. El 5 caused swelling in some pump impellers - a key component of the fuel 
pump that moves fuel into the fuel line. As t he fuel pump impellers swelled, the component 
jammed against is housing, resulting in the loss of vanes and causing fuel flow to halt. Two 
popular gasoline engines used in light-duty automotive applications of vehicles from model years 
2001 and newer failed with mechanical damage when operated on El5. 

The test results demonstrate there are potential negative consequences for consumers. The 
impacted vehicles are popular 2001 and newer vehicles that are approved for use with E15 by 
EPA. Fuel pumps seized with E15 on both the soak test and the endurance test, which would 
cause the engine to stop, potentially putting motorists at risk. Fuel Level Sender Systems were 
found to send erratic or “dirty” signals (e.g., indications of noise, spikes). In addition to 

potentially false tank readings on the instalment panel, the erratic signals could negatively 
impact the operation of the onboard diagnostic system. Engine durability results showed valve 
and valve seat damage that result in a loss of compression, exc ess emissions, and poor 

performance that may require expensive repair work. It is woah noting that the CRC tests 


48 Coordinating Research Council, “Intermediate-level Ethanol Blends Engine Durability Study,” 
April 2012; Coordinating Research Council, “Durability of Fuel Pumps and Fuel Level Senders 
in Neat and Aggressive El5. ” 

49 “Intermediate Level Ethanol Blends Engine Durability Study”, April 2012, 

http://www.crcao.com/reports/recentstudies2Q12/CM-136-09- 
1 B%20Engine%20Durabilitv/CRC%20CM-136-09-1 B%20Final%20Report.pdf; Durability of 
Fuel Pumps and Fuel Level Senders in Neat and Aggressive E15, January 2013 

http://www.crcao.org/reports/recentstudies2013/CRC%20664%20rAWL- 
15al/A VFL%20l5a%20rCRC%206641%20Final%20Report%20onlv.pdf 

20 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005568-00020 



assessed long-term damage and may not be reflective of effects associated with short -term (i.e. 
single tank) use of El 5. 

b) E15 Incompatibility with Existing Fuel Retail Infrastructure 

In addition, El 5 is incompatible with the existing refueling infrastructure. As much as half of 
the retail gasoline infrastructure may not be compatible with ethanol blends above 10 percent. 50 
Prior to 2010, Underwriters Laboratories (the primary Nationally Recognized Testing 
Laboratory) had not listed a single dispenser as compatible with any alcohol concentration 
greater than 10 percent. Given that states require this certification and that dispensers have 
useful lives greater than 20 years, the vast majority of dispensers in the country are not currently 
authorized to dispense El5. The same issue exists with the underground storage tanks and 
piping systems. Approximately 96% of the gasoline stations in th e country are independently 
owned and it is beyond the control of the obligated parties to require investments to make those 
stations compliant. 51 

Stakeholders in the ethanol industry have asserted 52 that the law requires obligated parties - 
refiners and importers - to invest in retail infrastructure to offer higher ethanol blends even 
though such obligated parties own less than five percent of the retail gasoline stations. Such 
assertions are unsubstantiated and simply false. CAA section 21 l(o) does not require any party 
to invest in retail infrastructure, nor can any such obligation be implied in the law or EPA’s 
implementing regulations. As EPA has recognized in the past, members of the renewable fuel 
industry are free to invest in such infrastructure - it is after all, their product that they are trying 

53 

to force on consumers. " Indeed, if members of the ethanol industry truly believed that the only 
market impediment to greater consumption of El 5 and E85 were a lack of fueling pumps, they 
should be wil ling to invest in retail fueling stations so that they could profitably satisfy the 
rewards of alleged unmet consumer demand for higher ethanol blends. 

In 2010 and 2011 EPA granted partial waivers to allow gasoline that contains 15% ethanol, yet 
there has been very little introduction of El5 in the marketplace. The proposed rule discusses 
the USDA Biofuel Infrastructure Partnership grant funding that EPA expects will increase 
number of E15 stations by nearly 1,500. EPA makes several assumptions regarding the BIP that 
are unsupported and optimistic: all 1500 stations will be in service for the full year in 2017; all 
stations will offer E15; and E15 sales will be 50% of total gasoline at all stations. It is also 


50 Larry Gregory Consulting, LLC. “A Comprehensive Analysis of Current Research on El 5 
Dispensing Component Compatibility” March 2012. Found at http://www.api.org/news-and- 
media/news/newsltems/2012/aug-2012/~/media/Files/Policv/Altematives/E 15-Infrastructure- 
Comprehensive-Analvsis.ashx 

51 PM A A letter to Chairman Upton and Ranking Member Pallone, House Committee on Energy 
and Commerce, May 1, 2015. 

http://www.pmaa.org/weeklvreview/attachments/PMAA Rebuttal REA April 2015 FINAL%2 
O.pdf 

' http://www.ethanolrfa.org/pages/big-oil-builds-the-blend-wall, 

C O 

~ Proposed Rule, Renewable Fuel Standard Program: Standards for 2014, 2015, and 2016 and 
Biomass-Based Diesel Volume for 2017, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111 

21 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005568-00021 






important for EPA to keep in perspective that there are approximately 153,000 retail fuel stations 
in the U.S.; 54 and just 1% would carry E15 if the expectations of the BIP program are met. 

The retail refueling system in the United States grew organically as private enterprise made 
capital inves tments to sell consumers products that they demanded. There is nothing stopping 
members of the ethanol industry from doing the same to bring to market more E15, E85, and 
other renewable fuels to consumers. In fact, the number of retail fuel stations has declined 

significantly in the past several years, suggesting that there are opportunities for members of the 
renewable fuel industry to construct renewable fuel fueling stations to provide El5, E85 and 
other renewable fuels to consumers. If the renewable fuels industry believes there is consumer 
demand and economic benefits from making such investments and is willing to accept the 
potential liability for selling fuels that are not compatible with consumers’ vehicles, then it is 
reasonable to expect the renewable fuel industry will make such investments. It is not reasonable 
to forecast that obligated parties or independent retailers will make potentially uneconomic 
decisions and then base RFS standards on such an assumption. 

c) Liability Concerns 

Finally, the potential liability issues associated with marketing E15 fuel will hinder its 

introduction. EPA must factor in the risks and potential liabilities presented by E15 in terms of 
vehicle and infrastructure incompatibility. EPA must avoid promul gating a rule that incentivizes 
the manufacture and sale of a fuel product (El5) that carries with it a number of substantial (and 
unresolved) liability issues. Specifically, El5: 

• Could damage engines and other systems in millions of vehicles that have been 

“approved” by EPA for El5, but which are unapproved for such fuel by the vehicle 
manufacturers and for which use may void the vehicle warranty; 

• Is illegal for use in tens of millions of older automobiles, trucks, off -road vehicles, 
boats and small-equipment products, and may decrease the availability of the gasoline 
required by owners of these products; 

• Results in diminished fuel economy for most vehicles, thus reducing vehicle 
efficiency; 

• Is incompatible with, and thus cannot legally be stored in or dispensed from, the vast 
majority of the existing gasoline retail distribution system, requiring enormous costs 
to upgrade retail systems. 

A recent Report by Iowa Department of Revenue shows that the average per station El 5 sales in 
Iowa is only 15% of average per station E10 sales. 55 Given this history and the concerns raised in 


54 The Fuels Institute, A Market Performance Analysis and Forecast, 2014. 

55 “2015 Retailers Fuel Gallons Annual Report,” Kathy Harpole, Research and Analysis 
Division, Iowa Department of Revenue, April 2016 

22 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005568-00022 



this section, the EPA’s aspirational goal of half of the gasoline sold at the average retail gasoline 
station being E15 56 is unlikely at best. 

4. Conventional Renewable Imports 

Since 2013, when EPA’s RFS standards breached the E10 blendwall, EPA’s EMTS has reported 
sharp annual increases in D6 RINs from renewable diesel and biodiesel and simultaneously a n 
increase in import s of D6 RINs. Similarly, EIA has reported high biodiesel imports from 
Indonesia, a major palm oil producer and exporter. In its 2012 NOD A, EPA presented data that 
disqualified palm oil biodiesel /renewable diesel from being categorized as conventional 
renewable fuel. In a recent 2016 report funded by the European Commission, ' GHGs emitted 
from land use change using palm oil as biodiesel feedstock are estimated at 23 1 gC02e/MJ of 
biofuel produced, resulting in palm oil to biodiesel pathway GHG emissions that are greater than 
200% higher than diesel fuel emissions. Nonetheless, palm oil imports into the U.S. have been 
permitted to qualify for the RFS due to grandfathering provisions of the Energy Independence 
and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). 

A direct implication of setting renewable fuel volume sta ndards that exceed the ethanol 
blendwall is that it encourages imported biodiesel that is produced from palm oil . EPA’s own 
analysis 60 finds that biodiesel produced from palm oil fails to meet GHG emission reduction 
requirements of the RFS, except it is allowed if it meets grandfathering provisions of EISA. 
Biodiesel imports into the U.S. from Indonesia, a leading palm oil producing cou ntry, have 
increased from zero in 2012 to 73 million gallons in 2015 61 . This outcome of increased palm oil 
biodiesel consumption in the U.S. is another inconsistency with EISA’s stated purpose to “...to 
increase the production of clean renewable fuels...” 

In the 2017 RFS proposal, EPA set the conventional volume at 14.8 billion RINs or 10.42% of 
the gasoline pool if all conventional biofuel were ethanol, hence breaching the E10 blendwall. In 
Table IID.l of the proposal, EPA as sum es 400 million gallons of con ventional 
biodiesel/renewable diesel are included in the conventional D6 pool. This continued practice of 
EPA to encourage imports from grand fathered facilities, including palm based 
biodiesel/renewable diesel results in significant increases in GHGs, contrary to the stated intents 
of the Agency to lower GHGs. 

API recommends that EPA remove the 400 million gallons of conventional biodiesel/ renewable 
diesel from the calculated standards volume. 


56 Page, 34800 “Since the average retail station will sell about 950 thousand gallons of gasoline 
in 2017, 800 million gallons of E15 could be sold if about half of the gasoline sold at each of 
these 1,700 stations was El5.” 

57 

https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel~standard-program/learn-more-about-notiee-data~ 
availability-noda-renewable-fuels 

5 8 

1 ec.europa.eu/energv/sites/ener/files/documents/Final%20Report GLOBIOM publication.pdf 

59 http://www.theicct.org/blogs/staff/unexpected-tax-bill-for-imported-palm-oil-biodiesel 

60 https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/420fl 1046.pdf 

61 www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet move impcus a2 nus EPOORDB imO mbbl a.htm 

23 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005568-00023 



B. Advanced Biofuels Volume 

EPA is proposing to again set an aggressive advanced biofuel target in 2017. EPA proposes a 
2017 advanced biofuel volume requirement of 4 billion gallons, which is a 600 million gallon 
increase over the proposed volume of 3.4 billion gallons for 2016. Us ing EMTS data up to and 
including May 2016, the 2016 annualized volume for advanced biofuels is approximately 3.2 
billion ethanol equivalent RINs. 

In the Proposed Rule, EPA applied most, but not all, of its exercise of the cellulosic waiver to the 
advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel RVOs. Due to the nested nature of the standards, to 
lower the overall cost of the program to consumers and to make the regulations more achievable, 
EPA should always extend the full volume of any cellulosic waiver to bo th the advanced biofuel 
and the total renewable fuel RVO requirements. 

Sugar cane ethanol use has decreased over the last few years. A ccording to data from EIA that 
show renewable fuel imports from Brazil have decreased down to zero for the first four months 
of 2016. 62 Therefore, EPA should not presume any sugarcane imports in 2017 given the issues 
associated with the ethanol blendwall. If , however, EPA does presume that some of the 
advanced biofuel obligation will be met with sugarcane ethanol, it is necessary to consider this 
volume when assessing the total ethanol that can be consumed in 2017 .In other words, given 
the constraints of the blendwall, EPA should presume any sugarcane ethanol will displace 
domestic com ethanol. 

Our recommended forecast of advanced biofuel volumes available in 2017 is summarized in the 
table below. The advanced biofuel volume standard for 2017 should be set at 3.2 billion gallons. 

2017 Advanced Biofuel Volume Standard Recommendations 



Billion RINs 

Biomass-Based Diesel D4 RINs 6j 

3.0 

Cellulosic Biofuel D3 & D7 RINs 

Last 3 months annualized 
(estimated at 0.2 billion) 64 

Sugar Cane Ethanol D5 RINs 

0.0 

Total Advanced Biofuel RINs 

3.2 


62 

U.S. Imports by Country of Origin 

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet move impcus a2 nus epooxe imO mbbl m.htm 

63 13 2.0 billion gallons X 1.5 equivalency value. The biomass-based diesel number is based on 
the 2 billion gallon mandate that EPA has finalized for 2017. That mandate is currently in 
litigation. Should the court require EPA to lower the biomass-based diesel volume for 2017, the 
values for biomass based diesel, advanced, and general renewable in this table should all be 
adjusted accordingly. 

64 Based on March, April & May 2016 cellulosic RIN generation per EPA’s EMTS website. 

24 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005568-00024 



C. Cellulosic Biofuels Volume and Concerns with EPA’s Methodologies 


EPA must conduct a thorough and objective assessment of likely cellulosic biofuel production 
for 2017 before setting RFS standards for that year. If EPA overestimates cellulosic biofuel 
production, it will cause fees to be imposed on obligated parties through no fault of their own, 
and will likely exacerbate issues that can undermine the stability and effectiveness of the RFS. 

To provide some context for our comments below, it is useful to briefly review EPA’s previous 
attempts to estimate cellulosic biofuel production. In several earlier proposals, the Agency has 
attempted to develop a methodology that can accurately assess the likely cellulosic biofuel 
production in the upcoming year. Each year EPA has recognized that cellulosic biofuel 
production would not meet the statutory volumes and has therefore reduced the cellulosic biofuel 
applicable volume as required by § 7545(o)(7)(D). Despite those reductions, EPA grossly 
overestimated cellulosic biofuel production every year from the program’s inception in 2010 
through 2014 65 : 


Compliance 

Year 

8136.11017 

requirement 

(gallons) 

EPA Projected 

production 

(gallons) 

Actual 

production 

(gallons) 

Extent of 
EPA Error 

2010 

100 million 

5 million 

0 

100% 

2011 

250 million 

6.6 million 

0 

100% 

2012 

500 million 

8.65 million 

20,069 

99.8% 

2013 

1 billion 

6 million 

810,185 

86.5% 

2014 

1.75 billion 

67 million 
(<17 million 
liquid cellulosic; 
50 million 
CNG/LNG) 

33.1 million 
(<0.83 million 
liquid 

cellulosic; 32.6 

million 

CNG/LNG) 

95.1% 

(liquid 

cellulosic) 

50.7% 

(total 

cellulosic) 66 


65 The statutory requirements in this table are set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 7545( o)(2)(B)(i)(III). The 
EPA projected production levels are set forth in the final rules for 2010 -2013 and the NPRM for 
2013. See 75 Fed. Reg. 14,670 (2010 final rule); 75 Fed. Reg. 76,790 (2011 final rule); 77 Fed. 
Reg. 1,320 (2012 final rule); 78 Fed. Reg. 49,794 (2013 final rule); 78 Fed. Reg. 71,732 (2014 
NPRM). The actual production totals are drawn from EPA’s Public Data for the Renewable Fuel 
Standard website, https://www.epa.gov/fuels -registration-reporting-and-compliance-help/public- 
data-renewable-fuel-standard, and from two memoranda: Memorandum from Dallas Burkholder, 
Office of Transportation and Air Quality, EPA, to Air and Radiation Docket EPA -HQ-OAR- 
2015-0 111, Assessment of Cellulosic Biofuel Production from Biogas (2015 —2016), at 2 (Apr. 
27, 2015); Mem orandum from Dallas Burkholder, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, 
EPA, to Air and Radiation Docket EPA -HQ-OAR-2016-0004, April 2016 Assessment of 
Cellulosic Biofuel Production from Biogas (2017), at 2 (Apr. 2016). 

66 EPA’s final rule for 2014 ha s an error rate of 0% because it adopts the actual production level 
and was published 11 months after the compliance year ended. See 80 Fed. Reg. 77,502. The 
data in the 2014 row above are based on the projected totals set forth in the 2014 proposed rule , 

25 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005568-00025 




The D.C. Circuit held EPA’s 2012 cellulosic biofuel projection was arbitrary and capricious and 
vacated the 2012 cellulosic biofuel RFS. API , 706 F.3d at 474. The Court concluded that the 
CAA does not allow EPA “to adopt a methodology in which the risk o f overestimation is set 
deliberately to outweigh the risk of underestimation.” Id. at 479. It further emphasized that EPA 
acted arbitrarily and capriciously by not “tak[ing] neutral aim at accuracy” in its projection, and 
that the CAA requires EPA to det ermine “what will actually happen.” Id. at 476, 479 (emphasis 
in original). 67 EPA is not permitted to “try[] hard to push the envelope” - in direct contradiction 
with the court’s prior admonition. 68 

There has been an increase in cellulosic biofuels over th e past couple years due to EPA adopting 
an expanded definition of “cellulosic biofuel.” In July 2014, EPA approved a new pathway 
under which compressed natural gas (“CNG”) and liquefied natural gas (“LNG”) derived from 
landfills and similar sources qualif y as cellulosic biofuel. See 79 Fed. Reg. 42,128 (July 18, 
2014). EPA’s expansion of the definition of cellulosic biofuel to include CNG/LNG “led to a 
significant increase in cellulosic RIN generation” beginning “in late 2014.” 80 Fed. Reg. 77,499. 
Indeed, the “vast majority” of the cellulosic biofuel RINs generated in 2014 —“approximately 32 
million” out of 33 million total—were for CNG or LNG. Id. at 77,502 n.209. 69 The same holds 


issued November 29, 2013—one day before the final rule for 2014 was due under the CAA. See 
78 Fed. Reg. 71,732, 71,750 -51; 42 U.S.C. § 7545( o)(3)(B)(i). The difference between liquid 
cellulosic biofuels and total cellulosic biofuels is explained below and results from EPA’s 
approval in July 2014 of a new pathway for renewable compressed natural gas (CNG) and 
liquefied natural gas (LNG) to be counted as cellulosic biofuel. 

fyH 

Following the D.C. Circuit’s decision, EPA acknowledged that its 2011 cellulosic biofuel 
requirements was also flawed, and reduced the requirements for 2011, 2012, and 2013 to match 
the number of cellulosic RINs actually made available for those years. See, e.g. , 79 Fed. Reg. 
25,025 (May 2, 2014) (direct final mle re-setting 2013 cellulosic biofuel standard). 

68 EPA Newsroom. Speeches by Administrator Gina McCarthy, Remarks at National Com 
Growers Association, As Prepared, July 16, 2015. 

69 EPA has publicly released monthly breakdowns of the number of cellulosic biofuel RINs 

generated from CNG/LNG in 2014 and 2015. See Memorandum from Dallas Burkholder, Office 
of Transportation and Air Quality, EPA, to Air and Radiation Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111, 
Assessment of Cellulosic Biofuel Production from Biogas (2015 —2016), at 2 (Apr. 27, 2 015); 

Memorandum from Dallas Burkholder, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, EPA, to Air 
and Radiation Docket EPA -HQ-OAR-2016-0004, April 2016 Assessment of Cellulosic Biofuel 
Production from Biogas (2017) , at 2 (Apr. 2016). However, EPA has not pub licly released 
monthly breakdowns of the number of RINs generated from conventional liquid cellulosic 
biofuel, and instead has treated this information as confidential business information (CBI). The 
maximum volume of conventional liquid cellulosic biofue 1 production can be derived by 
subtracting the number of RINs reported for CNG/LNG from the total number of cellulosic 
biofuel RINs reported for each month on EPA’s website. See, e.g. , EPA, 2015 Renewable Fuel 
Standard Data (May 10,2016), https://www.epa.gov/fuefs-registration-reportipg-and~ 

compliance-help/2015-renewable-fuel-standard-data . The difference between those sums 
constitutes the maximum number of conventional liquid cellulosic biofuel RINs, rather than the 
actual number of such RINs, due to production of nontraditional cellulosic biofuels such as 
heating oil, and due to after -the-fact RIN generation error corrections. Workshee ts showing the 

26 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005568-00026 




true for 2015, as EPA estimated that over 94% of cellulosic biofuel pro duction would be from 
CNG/LNG for the final three months of the year. See 80 Fed. Reg. 77,506. But for the 
expansion to include CNG/LNG, EPA’s annual error rate in estimating the annual level of 
cellulosic biofuel production would remain well above 90%. In its NPRM for the 2014 program 
year, EPA estimated that 17 million gallons of liquid cellulosic biofuel would be produced in 
2014. 78 Fed. Reg. 71,748. Actual liquid cellulosic biofuel production in 2014 was at most 0.83 
million RINs. Thus, had EPA not amended the definition of cellulosic biofuel by adding the 
CNG/LNG pathway, EPA’s 2014 estimate would have been off by 95.1%. Similarly, while EPA 
forecast in its 2014 -2016 final rule that 2 million gallons of liquid cellulosic biofuel would be 
produced in the fourth quarter of 2015, see 80 Fed. Reg. 77,505 -06, EPA records show that at 
most 0.58 million gallons were produced during that period. Thus, EPA’s estimate—issued in 
November 2015 for October-December 2015—overshot the mark by at least 71%. The simple 
tmth is that EPA’s model is not designed to, and does not in fact, forecast “what will actually 
happen.” API, 706 F.3d at 479. 

The Proposed Rule repeats these errors by applying the same methodology for 2017. As in 
recent years, the Proposed Rule analyzes the CNG/LNG and conventional (liquid) cellulosic 
biofuel markets separately. EPA’s estimates for both fuel sub -categories are arbitrary and 
capricious, and must be substantially reduced in the final rule. 

1. Estimated Liquid Cellulosic Biofuel Production 

The Proposed Rule estimates that 30 million gallons of liquid cellulosic biofuel will be produced 
in 2017—more than ten times the amount of liquid cellulosic biofuel produced in 2015. 81 Fed. 
Reg. 34,806. This estimate is flawed in numerous respects. 

2. Individual Facility Production Ranges 

The Proposed Rule’s method for calculating the production ranges for each facility “runs counter 
to the evidence before the agency” and “is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a 
difference in view or the product of agency expertise.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. 
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). This is so for four reasons. 

First, EPA’s unquestioning acceptance of producers’ projected start -up dates is unreasonable in 
light of past experience. EPA has consistently erred in forecasting liquid cellulosic biofuel 
facility start-up dates in prior years. In nearly every case, EPA has adopted start -up dates that 
prove to be months or years earlier than a facility’s actual start-up date. 72 

Given EPA’s long history of adopting overly optimistic projected start -up dates, it is incumbent 
on EPA to come forward with hard evidence that the start -up dates in the Proposed Rule are 


maximum number of conventional liquid cellulosic biofuel RINs for 2014 and 2015 are attached 
as Appendix C. 

70 See Appendix C (2014 worksheet). 

H 1 

See Appendix C (2015 worksheet). 

' For examples, see Appendix B at 7-8. 

27 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005568-00027 




grounded in fact and describe “what will actually happen.” API , 706 F.3d at 479. The Proposed 
Rule fails to carry this burden; indeed, it provides no meaningful evidence that the projected 
start-up dates it adopts are any more realistic than the start -up dates adopted in prior years. Nor 
does EPA factor into its analysis the possibility that new liquid cellulosic plants will repeatedly 
miss their target start -up dates for years on end, as the Cool Planet, DuPont, and Poet -DSM 
plants have. 

Second , EPA’s use of a six -month ramp-up to expected capacity is unreasonable in light of past 
experience. See 81 Fed. Reg. 34,805. EPA has produced no evidence that a six -month ramp-up 
period is reasonable, and so far as API is aware, no liquid cellulosic biofuel facility capable of 
producing commerci al-scale quantities of fuel has ever reached planned capacity within six 
months. Indeed, as of December 2015, “[n]o biofuel startups have managed to produce a next - 
generation biofuel at commercial scale in the U.S.,” period. ' The record shows that many 
facilities take a year or more to reach even a fraction of design capacity. 74 

It is tme that the Proposed Rule employs a six -month ramp-up only to compute “the high end of 
the projected production range for each group of companies.” 81 Fed. Reg. 34,805. But EPA 
has offered no evidence that a six -month ramp -up period is attainable even under the best of 
circumstances. Despite the abundance of data on ramp -up periods from past years, the 
Proposed Rule does not cite one example in which a facility achiev ed substantial production 
within six months of initial production. Even if EPA could identify a handful of instances in 
which a facility did ramp up to full capacity within six months, that data would need to be 
balanced against the considerable data show ing that it takes facilities years to ramp up to 
meaningful production, and against the data showing that facilities often go out of business 
before generating any cellulosic biofuel RINs. 

Third , EPA failed to consider the possibility that facilities would encounter difficulties that cause 
them to fall below prior production levels, or even to zero. See 80 Fed. Reg. 77,503-05 (setting 
the low end of the range for companies with “consistent commercial scale production” at a level 
equal to those companies’ “actual production volumes” over the preceding 12 -month period). 
This omission is unreasonable given the considerable evidence that cellulosic biofuels producers 

76 

are often unable to sustain production levels over extended periods. 

The Proposed Rule inco rporates by reference the methodology used in EPA’s final rule for 
2014-2016, see 81 Fed. Reg. 33,804, which concedes that “the low end of the range does not 
necessarily represent a worst -case scenario,” 80 Fed. Reg. 77,503. Indeed, “[t]he worst -case 
scenario for any” facility “is no production.” Id. Yet in spite of these concessions and the data 
above, EPA nevertheless concludes that “it is generally appropriate to use the production over 


73 Katie Fehrenbacher, How Tech Billionaire Vi nod Khosler’s Biofuel Dream Went Bad , Fortune 
(Dec. 15. 2015). http://fortune.com/kior-vinod-khosla-ciean-tech/ . 

74 For examples, see Appendix B at 7-8. 

75 

In fact, EPA has even acknowledged there has been a “history of start -up delays and missed 
production targets in the cellulosic biofuels industry.” 80 Fed. Reg. at 77,503. 

1 For examples, see Appendix B at 9-11. 

28 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005568-00028 



the previous 12 months as the low end of the range.” Id.-, see also 81 Fed. Reg. 34,805 (“The 
low end of the range for each group . . . reflects actual RIN generation over the last 12 months 
for which data are available.”). EPA’s view of what is “generally appropriate” is not consistent 
with the facts or with the CAA’s command that the agency take “neutral aim at accuracy.” API, 
706 F.3d at 724. The Proposed Rule cites no data in support of its approach, and the record 
overwhelmingly shows that the low end of a facility’s future production range is not the facility’s 

77 

production over the past year. 

EPA should remedy this error by adopting zero as the low end of the expected range for each 
conventional liquid cellulosic biofuel facility. Such an approach would better harmonize with 
past experience and better pr edict “what will actually happen” in the future. API, 706 F.3d at 
479. 

Fourth, the Proposed Rule ignores completely several producers that EPA has relied upon in 
prior rulemakings, but which went out of business or have been unable to produce meaningful 
volumes of liquid cellulosic biofuel. 78 The Proposed Rule (and its supporting memorandum) 79 
do not acknowledge or discuss Cool Planet and INEOS Bio, two firms that EPA relied upon in 
fashioning its final rule for 2016. See 80 Fed. Reg. 77,508. As discussed in Appendix B, neither 
of these firms has produced cellulosic biofuel RINs in recent years, and neither of them is 
expected to begin producing such RINs any time soon. Nor does the Proposed Rule “reflec[t] 
on” the failures of other liquid cellulosic biof uel producers in past years, despite the abundance 
of available and highly relevant data. API, 706 F.3d at 427. An agency seeking to take “neutral 
aim at accuracy,” id, may not bury its head in the sand in this fashion. 80 

* * * 

In each of these respect s, EPA’s failure to take account of past “experience” and to “reflec[t] on 
the success of earlier [projections]” constitutes arbitrary and capricious decision making. API, 
706 F.3d at 427; see also State Farm , 463 U.S. at 29 (rule invalid where agency has “entirely 
failed to consider an important aspect of the problem” or “offered an explanation that runs 
counter to the evidence before the agency”). 

3. 25 th Percentile Model for Forecasting Production by “New” Facilities 

EPA’s assumption that new facili ties with no track record of RIN generation will produce 
cellulosic biofuel volumes in the 25th percentile of that facility’s estimated production range is 
unreasonable and contrary to the record. See 81 Fed. Reg. 34,806. 


77 

The roster of companies that once produc ed liquid cellulosic biofuel, but are no longer in 
business, illustrate the point. Together, EPA’s final rules for 2010 through 2013 list numerous 
companies that fall into this category. 

78 

1 For examples, see Appendix B at 11-12. 

79 

Memorandum from Dallas Burkholder, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, EPA, to Air 
and Radiation Docket EPA -HQ-OAR-2016-0004, April 2016 Assessment of Cellulosic Biofuel 
Production from Biogas (2017), at 2 (Apr. 2016). 

1 For further discussion, see Appendix B at 13-14. 

29 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005568-00029 


EPA provides no factual support for the 25th percentile method, which amounts to an 
assumption that new facilities will produce at approximately 23.5% of design capacity. 81 

Historically, new facilities produce at approximately 3 percent of capacity. In fact, industry 
wide, cellulosic bi ofuel facilities—new and established—failed to reach 3 percent of capacity in 
2015. “ Among other things, EPA failed to consider whether a 10 th percentile of 5 th percentile 
model would better explain the available data. 

EPA should rectify this error by ado pting a percentile model that is in line with the record. The 
data above shows that 2.8% of capacity is a more accurate estimate for cellulosic biofuel 
production from facilities without a proven production track record. 83 Applying this model to 
the aggregate design capacity of 51 million gallons for facilities without prior commercial -scale 
production 84 would yield an estimate of 1.4 million gallons of cellulosic biofuel production in 
2017 for new liquid cellulosic biofuel producers, rather than the projec tion of 12 million gallons 
included in the Proposed Rule. See 81 Fed. Reg. 34,806. 

4. 50 th Percentile Model for Forecasting Production By “Established” 

Facilities 

EPA’s assumption that facilities with “consistent commercial scale production” will produce i n 
the 50th percentile of their estimated production range is equally invalid. As with the 25 th 
percentile method, EPA provides no factual support for its approach, and the approach is 
contrary to record evidence from prior program years. Indeed, the 50th percentile model bears 
no relationship whatsoever to the available data. 85 


81 

' This calculation is based on the reported design capacities for DuPont (30 million gallons) and 
GranBio (21 million gallons). A precise calculation is impossible because the Proposed Rule 
does not provide a design capacity for Edeniq, the third firm in the n ew-producer data set. See 
81 Fed. Reg. 34,805 (stating “various” as Edeniq’s “Facility capacity”). API is unable to 
construct an estimate for Edeniq because the record material pertaining to Edeniq’s production is 
designated as CBI. See, e.g., Edeniq Call Notes 3.10.16, 

https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-QAR-2016-0004-0023 . Thus, the 
utilization rate given above thus assumes that Edeniq’s capacity is zero. 

According to the 2014 -2016 final rule, design capacity was at least 105 million gallons in 
2015, excluding facilities for which no specific capacity was provided (e.g., Edeniq) or for which 
production was not expected to begin until 2016. See 80 Fed. Reg. 77,501. The maximum 
possible level of actual liquid cellulosic biofuel production was 2.3 million gallons, or 2.2 
percent of industry-wide design capacity. 

8 '' This ratio is based on the highest industry -wide production rate since the c ellulosic biofuel 
program began in 2010—2.8% of cumulative design capacity in the fourth quarter of 2015. 

1 See, e.g.. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Technical Report, 2015 Survey of Non- 
Starch Ethanol and Renewable Hydrocarbon Biofuels Producers, at 5 (Jan. 2016), available at 

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fvl6osti/65519.pdf; Robert Rapier, Cellulosic Ethanol Falls A Few 
Billion Gallons Short, Energy Trends Insider (Feb. 13, 2016), 

http://www.energytrendsinsider.com./2016/02/13/celhilosic-ethanol-falls-a-few~billion-gallons~ 
short/: Katie Fehrenbacher, How Tech Billionaire Vinod Khosler’s Biofuel Dream Went Bad, 
Fortune (Dec. 15, 2015), http :// fortune : cpm/kipr-yipqd-khosla : clean-tech/ . 

85 For a further discussion on this issue, see Appendix B at 18-19. 

30 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005568-00030 




Based on the data discussed in Appendix B, and accounting for the possibility (albeit unlikely) 
that liquid cellulosic biofuel producers will produce at a higher overall rate in 20 17 than in prior 
years, a proper substitute model would use 10% of the “established” producer group’s 
cumulative capacity. Only a handful of firms have reached production rates above 10% in recent 
years, and EPA has provided no evidence that these small f irms (e.g., Quad County Com 
Producers ) are representative of the “established” producer group as a whole. Moreover, a 
model using 10% of the “established” producer group’s capacity vastly outperforms the 
Proposed Rule’s 50th percentile model when applied to the data for 2010 -2015 shown above. 
This model would generate an expected production volume from the “established” producer 
group of 2.9 million gallons in 2017, rather than the projection of 18 million gallons included in 
the Proposed Rule. See 81 Fed. Reg. 34,806. 86 

5. Additional Issues 

The Proposed Rule’s forecast for liquid cellulosic biofuel also fails on other grounds. First , 

EPA’s estimate for liquid cellulosic biofuel (30 million gallons) is out of step with the EIA’s 
estimates for recent years. For example, EPA’s estimate for 2016 (23 million gallons) was more 
than double the estimate set forth by the EIA for 2016 (10 mil lion gallons). While the EIA 
projection for 2017 is not yet available, given EPA’s substantial increase in the volume estimate 
for 2017, EPA is likely to have an estimate significantly, and unreasonably, higher than EIA’s 
estimate. EPA has consistently d eparted upwards from EIA’s estimates in the past, see, e.g., 11 
Fed. Reg. 1,328 -29, and in each instance this departure has made EPA’s estimate more 
inaccurate than it would have been had EPA stuck with EIA’s estimate. 

Second, the CAA requires EPA to obta in the required EIA estimates for cellulosic biofuel 
production and place it in the docket for this rulemaking. See 42 U.S.C. § 7525(o)(7)(D)(i). 
These estimates are not only mandated by the statute, but they are intrinsic to the calculation of 
annual pe rcentage standards. It is well settled that “[a]n agency commits serious procedural 
error when it fails to reveal... the technical basis for a proposed rule in time to allow for 
meaning commentary.” Connecticut Power & Light Co. v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 673 
F.2d 525, 530 -31 (D.C. Cir. 1982); see also Chamber of Commerce ofU.S. v. SEC , 443 F.3d 
890, 901-06 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (vacating a rule on that basis). EPA’s failure to obtain and publish 
the EIA estimates for cellulosic biofuel production ren ders the cellulosic biofuel volume 
requirements for 2017 arbitrary and capricious, notwithstanding EPA’s statement that is 
“anticipate^] considering these estimates ... for the final rule.” 87 

Third, EPA has not provided sufficient transparency on data that form the central basis for EPA’s 
liquid cellulosic biofuel projections. EPA has withheld call notes, production data, and other key 
materials for liquid cellulosic biofuel producers, claiming that this information is CBI . EPA 
needs to improve its tra nsparency when establishing the cellulosic biofuel mandate, and, at 
minimum, provide sufficient information on which the public can provide meaningful comments. 


86 In the aggregate, the data -driven projection models recommended in this comment forecast 
actual liquid cellulosic biofuel production of 4.3 million gallons in 2017. 

87 81 Fed. Reg. 34,803. 

31 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005568-00031 



6 . 


CNG/LNG Cellulosic Biofuel Production Estimate 


Because CNG/LNG biogas will be providing the ov erwhelming majority of cellulosic RINs 

during 2017, the Agency must provide a much more transparent analysis of its determinations. 
Much of the significant information underlying that analysis has been designated as Confidential 
Business Information (CBI). Within such constraints, EPA must, however, support its analysis 
of the availability of such fuels in order to facilitate the opportunity for public comment. This is 
especially true because of the much larger population of facilities (at least 37) and the vastly 
larger volumes expected by EPA for biogas fuels in 2017 (148-217 million gallons), which could 
result in a sizeable overestimation of actual volumes that will generate RINs. EPA’s current 
analysis of these larger volumes fails the “neutral aim at accuracy” standard that was set forth by 
the D.C. Circuit. 

Furthermore, EPA’s projection of CNG/LNG includes several invalid assumptions in the 
estimation of potential future volumes. Specifically, the Proposed Rule uses a 50th percentile 
estimate of production for facilities that have not yet generated a cellulosic biofuel RIN. This 
approach is overly optimistic for the following reasons: 

• Not all new facilities are capable of producing transportation -grade biogas. Of the 

approximately 640 US landfill biogas projects, it is estimated that less than 8% produce a 
high BTU gas capable of being upgraded into a transportation -grade biogas. ’ An even 
smaller percentage of high BTU projects exist for digester and other biogas projects. 

• Facilities produ cing biogas -derived cellulosic fuel need to be located near an existing 
pipeline to enable movement to areas where biogas-derived cellulosic fuel will be utilized 
by the transportation fleet. Since most biogas -derived cellulosic fuel is consumed in 
California, pipeline transportation is required (except for small quantities currently used 
in local fleet use). It is unreasonable to assume that all facilities not currently generating 
cellulosic biofuel RINs would be located near a pipeline. 

• There are alte mative uses and competition for biogas -derived cellulosic fuel. State 
renewable portfolio standards (RPSs) require an increasing amount of renewable 
electricity. One cost -effective method of meeting the RPS requirements is through the 
use of biogas to generate electricity. Also, many biogas facilities use at least a portion of 
the generated biogas to generate local power. Any additional existing capacity would 
need to be diverted away from these uses. 

• Generating cellulosic RINs from RNG requires additi onal recordkeeping and reporting 
after the RNG is produced to document that it is used as a transportation fuel. This is an 
additional burden that can be a deterrent from generating additional RINs as the volume 


OO 

“ Biogas Opportunities Roadmap, US Department of Agriculture, Aug 2014 

oq 

1 EPA Landfill Methane Outreach Program, 

http://www.epa.gov/lmop/docuroents/xls/opprislmopdata.xlsx . Last Available July, 2015 

32 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005568-00032 



of RNG in the market continues to grow. In other words, growth in RNG volume may 
not translate directly into proportional growth in RIN generation. 

Given these factors, a more appropriate method for estimation of cellulosic -derived biogas RINs 
is to look at historic proven RIN generation and project cumulative volumes. 90 

* * * 

The above discussion underscores the need for EPA to use credible data inputs in its analysis of 
potential cellulosic biofuel volumes. Instead, EPA continues to rely upon calculations using 
unsupported assumptions and estimates provided by cellulosic producers to generate production 
estimates. Indeed, EPA continues to accept production forecasts from cellulosic biofuel 
manufacturers even though these forecasts have been wrong every year. In a recent example, the 
Coalition for Renewable Natural Gas estimated that August 2014 to December 2014 Cellulosic 
Biogas Production would be 69 million equivalent gallons, 91 more than twice the actual 
production of 32 million equivalent gallons during that period. In this RFS proposa 1, EPA is 
basing its projections on input collected from the Coalition for Renewable Gas. 

Data on EPA’s EMTS shows 140 million RINs were generated from renewable natural gas in 
2015. Through May 2016, EMTS shows about 62 million RINs have been generated this year, 
roughly equating to an annual average of 150 million RINs. The EPA forecast for 2017 of 284 
million RINs is almost double the historic rate over the past 17 months. We continue to 

recommend that EPA use historical production data when setting the annual cellulosic biofuel 
standard. Otherwise, the Proposed Rule will fail to “take neutral aim at accuracy.” 


D. Total Renewable Volume for 2017 

Based on the issues raised in the above comments API recommends the Final RFS volumes be 
based on the following volumetric requirements: 



Billion RINs 

Cellulosic Biofuel 

0.2 

Biomass-based Diesel 92 

3 

Advanced Biofuel 

3.2 

Conventional Renewable 

13.92 

Total Renewable Fuel 

17.12 


90 For a further discussion on this issue, see Appendix B at 19-20. 

91 Presentation by Coalition for Renewable Natural Gas, Waste to Biogas & Clean Fuels Finance 
& Investment Summit, Santa Clara, CA March, 2015. 

Q9 

' 2.0 billion gallons X 1.5 equivalency value. The biomass-based diesel number is based on the 
2 billion gallon mandate that EPA has finalized for 2017. That mandate is currently in litigation. 
Should the court require EPA to lower the biomass-based diesel volume for 2017, the values for 
biomass based diesel, advanced, and general renewable in this table should all be adjusted 
accordingly. 

33 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005568-00033 


III. Biomass-Based Diesel (BBD) Volume for 2018 


The RFS specifies a timeframe and requires a rigorous analytical review (six factor analysis 
discussed later) for increasing the biomass based diesel volume standard; EPA needs to adhere to 
these requirements. EPA’s proposal to set the 2018 BBD volume at 2.1 billion gallons lacks the 
required comprehensive analysis and could lead to consequences contradictory to the objectives 
of the RFS. 


A. Lead time requirement 

CAA section 211 (o)(2)(B) specifies the volumes for the categories of total renewable fuel, 
advanced biofuel, and cellulosic biofuel that must be consumed through calendar year 2022. For 
biomass-based diesel, however, section 21 l(o)(2)(B)(i) does not prescribe specific statutory 
volumes after 2012. Instead, CAA section 21 l(o)(2)(B)(ii) sets a 1 billion gallon floor and 
requires EPA to establish the biomass -based diesel volume requirements based on an analysis of 
six statutory criteria ( i.e ., environmental impact, energy security, expected production, impact on 
infrastmcture, cost to consumers, and certain other factors such as food prices and rural 
development). CAA section 21 l(o)(2)(B)(ii) expressly requires EPA to p rovide 14-months lead 
time when establishing such requirements. Specifically, under this provision: 

The Administrator shall promulgate rules establishing the 
applicable volumes under this clause no later than 14 months 
before the first year for which such applicable volume will apply. 9 ' 1 

EPA can comply with the 14 month lead -time requirement by finalizing the proposed rule by 
October 31, 2016. If it fails to meet that deadline, it cannot increase the biomass -based diesel 
levels beyond the last year for w hich it met this deadline, which, as explained below, was the 
2013 level of 1.28 billion gallons. 

EPA was required to have determined the 2014 biomass -based diesel applicable volume by 
October 31, 2012, the 2015 volume by October 31, 2013, the 2016 volume by October 31, 2014, 
and the 2017 volume by October 31, 2015. EPA failed to meet any of these deadlines. 
Compliance with the statutory lead time requirements for these years now is impossible. EPA 
also has not undertaken an adequate analysis of the six factors specified in CAA section 
21 l(o)(2)(B)(ii) for 2014-2017, for the same reasons it has failed to conduct an adequate analysis 
for 2018. 

Noncompliance with the statutory schedule and EPA’s lack of examination regarding the six 
statutory factors raise the issue of what level of biomass-based diesel can be required in 2018. In 
this regard, section 21 l(o)(2)(B)(ii) is clear: EPA cannot alter its most recent determination for 
2013 of 1.28 billion gallons, because this is the highest volume for which o bligated parties have 
had the requisite advance notice and an opportunity to comment on EPA’s application of the six 
statutory criteria. 94 While EPA could potentially meet the timing requirements for 2018, if it 


93 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)(2)(B)(ii). 

94 We note that even using the 2013 determination would not explicitly satisfy the requirement of 
CAA section 21 l(o)(2)(A)(ii) that the Administrator determine applicable volumes for “calendar 

34 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005568-00034 



finalized the proposed rule by October 31,2 016, the proposed rule’s failure to adequately 

consider the six factors specified in the CAA would preclude increasing the level beyond the 
2013 level of 1.28 billion gallons. Any higher applicable volume for biomass -based diesel (or 
percentage standard b ased on this volume) for 2018 would be contrary to the plain language of 
the statute. 95 


B. Six Factor Analyses 

Even if EPA were to meet the deadline, it has not undertaken an adequate analysis of the six 
factors specified in CAA section 21 l(o)(2)(B)(ii) for 2018. Consideration of these factors is a 
statutory prerequisite to revising the applicable volume of biomass -based diesel for years after 
2012. When EPA increased the BBD volume to 1.28 billion gallons for 2013, it concluded 
review of actual implementation, at the time, was of “limited value” because the RFS had a short 
history. Now, with a longer history of the RFS, EPA is in a better position to conduct a more 
rigorous analysis. 

Although EPA has attempted an an alysis of the six specified factors, EPA’s analysis is woefully 
inadequate and ignores information relevant to implementation and impacts of the RFS. Instead, 
EPA relies on the approach that the 2018 advanced biofuel volume requirement will determine 
the level of BBD production and import regardless of where the BBD volume requirement is set. 
Therefore, before EPA conducts the six factor analysis, EPA’s approach marginalizes BBD 
volume increases and, because EPA continues to rely on final rulemaking from 2010, EPA does 
not uncover negative impacts of increasing the BBD volume. It should be noted that the RFS 
RIA in 2010 was based on 1.5 billion gallons of biomass based diesel, a 31% lower volume than 
the proposed 2018 standard of 2.1 billion gallons. 

EPA should, for example consider new studies on biomass -based diesel impacts on air quality, 
GHGs, water use, fertilizer run -off into the Gulf of Mexico, food prices, as well as energy 
security (in light of the reliance upon imported fuel). The Agency shou Id also consider land use 
impacts and whether it is appropriate to continue to exempt domestically -produced crop-based 
biofuels like soy -based biodiesel (and com -based ethanol) from EISA’s land use restrictions 
especially given recent information indicating that EPA’s assumptions underlying that exemption 
were incorrect. 96 


years after the calendar years specified in the tables” since EPA’s determination was with respect 
to the year 2013 only. 

95 For further discussion on the Biomass-Based Diesel Standard for 2018, see Appendix B at 5-7. 

96 EISA requires that renewable fuels be produced from renewable biomass. The law further 

restricts the definition for crop -based renewable fuels to crops from land that was in agricultural 
use as of the date of enactment of EISA. However, in the original RFS2 rulemaking, EPA 
effectively exempted domestic crop -based biofuels from this requirement based on the 
assumption that there would be no new crop -land created. Recent reports including a University 
of Wisconsin study ( http://m.iopscience.iop.org/l 748-9326/1.0/4/044003/article') and an 

Associated Press investigation ( http://bigstorv.ap.org/article/secret-dirtv-cost-obamas-green- 
power-push-1 ) indicate this was an invalid assumption. 

35 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005568-00035 




Because it has failed adequately to analyze these factors, EPA may not increase the 2018 levels 
above the last year for which it properly promulgated a biomass -based diesel standard, whi eh 
was 2013. 

Six factors for EPA to address in increasing biomass-based diesel volume: 

1. Environment: EISA does not require EPA to rely on initial rule -making for subsequent 
assessments. In fact, the purpose is to review information that may become available. 
Science has evolved since EPA’s 2010 RIA and additional studies are available on the 
environmental impacts of biodiesel (GHGs, air quality, etc,) including the 2016 European 
Commission study referenced earlier. 58 EPA should take into consideration constraints 
and limitations of other advanced renewable fuels and new environmental information 
related to biomass -based diesel and compare with findings from 2010, not just rely on 
2010 findings. 

2. Energy Security: The U.S . is less reliant on imported oil now than when EISA was 
enacted and the RFS has “played only a small part in reducing projected net import 

O n 

dependence” according to the Deputy Administrator of the EIA , who also said reliance 
on oil imports is “significantly lower” and reductions in net imports are primarily driven 
by increased domestic petroleum production and reduced petroleum demand. 9S 

3. Expected annual rate of future commercial production of renewable fuels: To date, 
corn-ethanol and biomass -based diesel have been the two primary fuels utilized for 
compliance with the RFS, and based on current state of technology, these two fuels will 
continue to be the primary fuels utilized for compliance with the RFS. However, both of 
these fuels face real world constraints as the fuel pool becomes saturated with volumes 
that are compatible with existing infrastructure (i.e. E10 and B5). This saturation could 
likely cause barriers that must be overcome by other renewable fuels. 

4. Impacts of renewable fuel on infrastructure: The RFS has been ineffective in its 

ability for mandated renewable fuel volumes to effect infrastructure changes. The 
ethanol blendwall occurs at 10 volume percent and biodiesel blending limits effectively 
occur at 5 volume percent. EPA has acknowledged real word constraints that exist and 
are barriers to renewable fuel consumption. In EPA’s justification for utilizing its general 
waiver authority, these real world constraints limit the supply of renewable fuels, 
including biomass-based diesel. 

5. Impacts of renewable on cost to consumers: The Deputy Administrator of the EIA 

testified to congress that “biodiesel is significantly more costly than petroleum -based 
diesel under recent market conditions. Between August 2015 and January 2016, the 


97 Howard Gruenspecht, Deputy Administrator, Energy Information Administration Before the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works. February 24, 2016 

98 Howard Gruenspecht Deputy Administrator, Energy Information Administration. Statement 
before the House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on 
Energy and Power, June 22, 2016 

36 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005568-00036 



difference between the Gulf Coast spot market prices of biodiesel and petroleum -based 
diesel averaged $1.25 per gallon.” 99 EPA’s own analysis as part of this rule -making 
concludes that fuel costs will increase as a result of the RFS. However, the EPA analysis 
is likely an underestimate of actual costs to the broader economy because EPA only 
focuses on the wholesale level. By EPA’s own approach to inadequate domestic supply 
in using its waiver authority, this is an insufficient analysis because it does not measure 
the costs of actual renewable fuel consumption. 

6. Impacts of renewable on other factors (i.e. agricultural commodities, rural economic 
development): In the U.S., soybean oil is the single largest feedstock input to biodiesel 
production. The implications of increasing BBD requirements and impacts on direct land 
use and soybeans shoul d be considered. For example, adjusted for energy density, 
soybean based biodiesel energy production (Btu per acre) is less than 14 of com based 
ethanol Btu production. So in terms of land use requirements, the biodiesel volume 
mandate is relatively larg e when compared to renewable fuel produced from com starch 
ethanol. 

C. Cost Impacts of Proposed Standards 

In EPA’s “Illustrative Costs” memo, EPA has conducted a woefully inadequate assessment of 
the cost impacts of its proposed standards for 2017. 

First, EPA presents only three illustrative scenarios, but leaves out an other important scenario. 
EPA should include the scenario where biodiesel / renewable diesel is used to cover both the 
advanced and remaining conventional renewable beyond E10 and the de minimus volumes of 
E10+. EPA should evaluate this scenario based on EMTS data in 2014 and 2015. The ethanol 
blendwall constraints that exist have resulted in increasing volumes of biodiesel/renewable diesel 
D6 and D4 RINs and declining D5 RINs. 

Secondly, EPA’s illustrative cost analysis stops at the point of producing and delivering 
renewable fuel to the blender, as EPA focuses on the wholesale level. As analyzed, this 
approach is meaningless and falls short of actually measuring the costs and econ omic impacts of 
achieving objectives of the RFS. This approach is inconsistent with EPA’s justification for using 
general waiver authority in setting renewable fuel standards for 2014-2016. As EPA 100 discussed 
in RFS 2014 -2016 final rule making, renewable fuel must be “used to replace or reduce the 
quantity of fossil fuel” to be part of the supply. Biofuel availability by itself (i.e. at the 
wholesale level) is not considered as renewable fuel if it is not consumed. EPA’s illustrative 
approach focuses on wholesale level and ignores significant cost factors (i.e. infrastructure, 
energy density penalty, and other constraints) required for actual consumption of renewable 
fuels. It is important to take these cost factors and economic impacts into consideratio n because, 
unless actually consumed, renewable fuels do not achieve objectives of the RFS. 


99 Howard Graenspecht, Deputy Administrator, Energy Information Administration Before the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works. February 24, 2016 

100 Federal Register /Vol. 80, No. 239 /Monday, December 14, 2015 /Rules and Regulations 

37 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005568-00037 



D. Implications of Biomass -Based Diesel Requirements within Nested 
Standards. 

Because the BBD standard is nested within the advanced and total renewable fuel standar ds (i.e. 
a sub-mandate), increasing the BBD standard above 1.28 billion gallons has a limited ability to 
help meet fundamental objectives of the RFS. EPA 101 has previously acknowledged the BBD 
volumes responded to advanced and / or total renewable fuel requ irements. EPA has previously 
stated that competition among market participants is good 102 . In increasing BBD volume EPA 
attempts to strike a balance between supporting BBD volumes and other advanced biofuels. 
Increasing the BBD sub -mandate, above 1.28 bil lion gallons and within the nested structure is 
not irrelevant, and EPA should not increase the BBD above 1.28 billion gallons. 

The agency’s proposal to increase the BBD sub -mandate potentially interferes with market 
competition. It is not a requirement for EPA, per statutory authority, to encourage production 
and consumption of any specific biofuel over another biofuel. 

BBD pr oduction capacity and capacity utilization within the U.S. have remained relatively 
stagnant in recent years. According to the Energy Information Administration 103 , annual 

biodiesel production capacity has averaged 2.1 billion gallons between 2011 and 2015. During 
the same time period, capacity utilization has been in a range of 20.1% to 72.6%. Domestic 
production of biodiesel reached a peak of nearly 1.4 billion gallons in 2013 and declined to less 
than 1.3 billion gallons in 2014 and 2015. During this s ame time period, the U.S. switched from 
being a net exporter to a net importer of biodiesel. EPA’s approach of increasing BBD is most 
likely encouraging imported BBD, which does not necessarily lead “...toward greater energy 
independence and security...”, a stated purpose of EISA. 

Increasing the BBD sub -mandate does not change the total ethanol equivalent RIN volume. 
Although CAA requires EPA to establish the BBD category requirement in advance of the other 
renewable fuel categories, setting the volumes a nd annual percentage standards should not be 
conducted in isolation. For 2017, EPA has acknowledged real -world constraints and limitations 
that exist for distribution, blending and dispensing infrastructure. Simultaneously, EPA is 
looking to the market t o determine how compliance is achieved through the use of ethanol and 
non-ethanol fuels. Thus, EPA’s biomass-based diesel proposal for 2017 contains inconsistencies 
and could result in unintended consequences (i.e. economies of scale that may exist with a more 
flexible standard are potentially undercut by the increased sub-mandate). 

E. Feedstock Availability 

EPA should not set volumes, either advanced or biomass -based diesel, that could require 2.5 
billion gallons of biodiesel for 2018 as suggested by the National Biodiesel Board (NBB). There 
are inadequate supplies to meet this standard without potentially requiring a drawdown of carry - 
over RINs or causing disaiptions to feedstock supplies. 


101 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111/ Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

102 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 239 / Monday, December 14, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

1 Aa t 

' http://www.eia.gov/biofueis/biodiesel/production/archive/2016/2016 03/biodiesel.cfm 

38 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005568-00038 



Domestic biodiesel production capacity is too small. Betw een 2011 and 2015, domestic 
biodiesel production annual capacity has averaged 2.1 billion gallons and monthly production 
capacity utilization averaged 55%. Even with EPA’s implementation of the RFS, the EIA 
reported that domestic biodiesel production peaked at 1.4 billion gallons in 2013. 

Registered biodiesel production is unproven and likely too small. EPA reports in the proposed 
rule that registered biodiesel production for the RFS is around 2.7 billion gallons . Therefore it 
would require the industry to run at an average capacity utilization of 93% for a year to generate 
2.5 billion gallons. In review of data on EPA’s EMTS website, monthly biodiesel RIN 
generation has never reached 93% capacity utilization for ev en a single month. In recent years, 
capacity utilization has mostly been within the 60% to 80% range. Over the entire EMTS data 
base, the highest 12 consecutive month average for capacity utilization is 75%, which is far short 
of achieving 2.5 billion gallons. EPA points to limiting factors at registered biodiesel production 
facilities related to idled plants and availability of viable feedstocks. 

Feedstock supply disruptions: EPA provides sound reasoning for focusing on soybean oil as a 
feedstock for biodiesel volume above 1.28 billion gallons. Data published by EIA 104 reports that 
soybean oil is the single largest feedstock input for biodiesel production and according to 
USDA 105 data, soybeans are the largest crushed oilseed in the U.S. Producing biod ieselfrom 
soybean oil is more land intensive than producing ethanol from coni 106 and potential bushel and 
acreage implications of increasing biodiesel above 1.28 billion gallons are illustrated in the table 
below. Compared to recent actual soybean producti on, increasing the biodiesel volume mandate 
could result in relatively large changes. For example, increasing the biodiesel volume from 1.28 
to 2.5 billion gallons could require an additional 820 million bushels of soybeans and up to an 
additional 18 million acres. 


Biomass-based diesel volumes and requirements for soybeans 



BBD volume ... . . soybean production 

qa/bushe i 

(billion gallons) j (billion bushels) 

yield harvested acres 

(bu/ac) | (million) 



1.28 1.5 0.85 

2.00 1.5 1.33 

2.50 1.5 1.67 

45 19.0 

45 29.6 

[ 45 37.0 


*2012-2015 average 3.6 

45 79.2 


*2012-2015 U.S. average U.S. production, yield, and harvested acreage; source: USDA. 


Annual soybean crushing capacity in the U.S. is around 1.8 billion bushels per year producing 
around 20 to 22 billion pounds of soybean oil. The portion of soybean oil being used for 
biodiesel production (methyl ester) has increased from around 9% in 2005 to 28% in 2015. Food 


104 http://www.eia.gov/biofuels/biodiesel/production/ 

105 http://usda.niannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do7documentIDM902 

106 Conversion assumptions for biodiesel (1.5 gallons per bushel and 45 bushels per acre) and 
corn (2.8 gallons per bushel and 170 bushels per acre). 

39 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005568-00039 













107 


use is the primary destination for soybean oil in the U.S., as it is the “most predominant 
source of food oil. Increasing the biodiesel volume mandate would require a larger diversion of 
soybean oil away from food use and / or U.S. export markets. Research indicates that global 
vegetable oil markets are well connected and fungible . In the case of Europe, palm oil is the 
marginal oil that fills any domestic shortfall and contributes to indirect land use change 
emissions. To the extent that diverted soybean oil creates a gap for food oil and / or reduced 
U.S. exports, EPA should carefully consider the potential negative impacts of how the gap is 
filled. 




F. Vehicle constraints and consumer preference 

API fundamentally agrees with EPA’s assessment of potential limits on the growth of biodiesel 
and renewable diesel consumption capacity from the perspective of vehicle constraints and 
consumer preference. As EPA notes in the Preamble of the proposed rule, both the Federal 
Trade Commission and the ASTM International Specification for diesel fuel (ASTM D975) 
allow for biodiesel concentrations of up to five volume percent (B5) to be sold as diesel fuel. No 
separate labeling is required for blends containing up to B5 at the retail pump, so these blends are 
indistinguishable from petroleum -based diesel to the consumer. While many of the makers of 
passenger car and light truck diesel models offered for sale in the US warrant their vehicles for 
operation on B5 o r less, the vast majority of diesel fuel in the US is consumed by heavy duty 
vehicles and non-road engines. Although a number of heavy -duty diesel engine OEMs have, in 
recent years, begun to upgrade and warrant their engine models to operate on biodiesel blends 
containing up to 20 volume percent (B20), it is important to recognize that heavy -duty vehicle 
and non-road engines have extremely long service lives (-500,000+ miles), and therefore fleet 
turnover will serve to constrain the overall growth in consu mption of blends containing biodiesel 
in excess of 5% by volume. 

The relative pricing of B20 versus petroleum diesel also may continue to limit consumer 
acceptance of biodiesel and renewable diesel blends greater than B5. The chart below shows 
that, on an energy equivalent basis, the price of B99/B100 has historically always been higher 
than petroleum diesel. Consequently, the price of B20 also has generally been higher than 
petroleum diesel, albeit less so because of the use of biodiesel as a blendstock. 


107 http://www.sovconnection.com/newsletters/sov-connection/health-nutrition/articles/Whv- 
Soybean-Oil-Is-Called-Vegetable-Oil 

' 10 ~ 8 http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCT vegoil and EU biofuel mandate 
20130211 .pdf 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005568-00040 




While the price difference has been small on a percentage basis, it is important to note that the 
vast majority of the consumers of highway diesel fuel are commercial truck owners/operators for 
whom fuel costs are a significant component of overall operating costs. 

IV. Point of RFS Obligation 

API opposes moving the point of RFS obligation. Changing the point of obligation will not fix 
the blendwall problem or meaningfully impact the overall volume of renewable fuels. A change 
to the point of RFS obligation will create uncertainty in the RIN market and will complicate the 
administration and function of the RFS program. 

Moving the point of RFS obligation does not alleviate the infrastructure constraints throughout 
the distribution system. El5 and E85 will still face the current infrastructure hurdles, including 
retail equipment compatibility. The current RFS structure does not prevent renewable 
infrastmcture investments, and as EPA recognized in the 2014 - 2016 RFS proposal, renewable 
producers are free to make such investments. Moving the point of obligation also will not 
address consumer behavior as the significant issue of vehicle compatibility will remain. El 5 will 
continue to face significant hurdles including potential liability, and E85 will still be limited to 
FFVs. Changing the point of obligation will only shift the compliance responsibility to a 
different group of RFS participants. 

In implementing the RFS, Congress directed EPA to promulgate regulations that “contain 
compliance provisions applicable to refineries, blenders, distributors, and importers, as 
appropriate.” Based on EPA’s consideration of numerous factors, EPA placed the point of RFS 
obligation where gasoline and diesel are refined or imported. EPA recognized that some 
obligated parties, including merchant refiners, did not control the downstream blending of 
ethanol or other biofuels, and would need to have access to RINs. EPA addressed this co ncem 
by including provisions in the rule allowing obligated parties the unique ability to separate RINs 
for biofuels, and limited the amount of RINs that can be carried over, in part to make RINs more 

41 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005568-00041 

















































accessible in the market. EPA reconsidered the issue following the enactment of EISA, and 
decided not to change the point of obligation in that rulemaking. 

Changing the point of RFS obligation would create uncertainty in the RFS program and in the 
RIN market. RFS compliance plans, investments and commercia 1 agreements that were 
premised on the current structure would be disrupted. Such a major structural change nine years 
into the program creates uncertainty about other critical components of the program. The 
incentive for refiners to develop drop -in biofuels would diminish; and these fuels are not limited 
by the constraints of the ethanol blendwall. 

Changing the point of obligation would increase the complexity for EPA to administer and 
enforce the program, as the number of obligated parties would incr ease. The increased 

complexity affects the fuel distribution industry as the identification of obligated fuels becomes 
more difficult. The current RFS structure already includes provisions to facilitate compliance for 
all obligated parties, including the ability for obligated parties to separate RINs, and a 20% limit 
on compliance demonstrated with cany over RINs. 

As the only trade association representing all facets of the oil and natural gas industry, we urge 
the EPA to reject efforts by some to move the current point of RFS obligation. 

V. Cellulosic Waiver Credits 

At the June 9, 2016 public hearing on EPA’s proposal, some commentators argued that EPA 
should restrict the availability of cellulosic waiver credits (CWCs) available to obligated parties. 
We disagree with this suggestion. 

EPA discussed CWCs at length in the RFS2 rulemaking to implement the provisions of EISA. 
EISA states that whenever EPA reduces the minimum cellulosic mandate volumes specified in 
EISA, EPA “shall make available for sale cellulosic biofuel credits....” The law further directed 
EPA to promulgate regulations to implement this provision and states that “[t]he regulations 
shall limit the number of cellulosic biofuel credits for any calendar year to the minimum 
applicable volume (as reduced under this subparagraph) of cellulosic biofuel for that year.” 

EPA explained that they imposed a number of restrictions on the cellulosic biofuel waiver credits 
to ensure that they are not over utilized at the expense of actual renewable volume: 109 

We have fashioned a number of limitations on the use o f cellulosic that reflect these 

considerations. Specifically, the credits will be called “Cellulosic Biofuel Waiver 
Credits” (or “waiver credits”) so that there is no confusion with RINs or allowances 
used in the acid rain program. Such waiver credit s will only be available for the current 
compliance year for which we have waived some portion of the cellulosic biofuel 
standard, they will only be available to obligated parties, and they will be nontransferable 
and nonrefundable. Further, obligated part ies may only purchase waiver credits up to the 
level of their cellulosic biofuel RVO less the number of cellulosic biofuel RINs that they 
own. A company owning cellulosic biofuel RINs and cellulosic waiver credits may use 

109 75 Fed. Reg. 14727 (Mar. 26, 2010) 

42 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005568-00042 



both types of credits if desired to meet their RVOs, but unlike RINs obligated parties will 
not be able to carry waiver credits over to the next calendar year. Obligated parties may 
not use waiver credits to meet a prior year deficit obligation. These restrictions help 
ensure that waiver c redits are not over utilized at the expense of actual renewable 
volume. 

In the NPRM, EPA proposed that the credits could be usable for the advanced and total 
renewable standards similarly to cellulosic biofuel RINs. Several commenters stated this 
provision could displace advanced and total renewable fuel that was actually produced 
which would be against the intent of the Act, and that unlike RINs a company should 
only be permitted to use waiver credits to meet its cellulosic biofuel obligation. We agree, 
and are limiting the use of waiver credits for compliance with only a company’s 
cellulosic biofuel RVO. 

In the course of discussing the CWC issue in the RFS2 rule, EPA explained that the purpose of 
the CWC provision in EISA was to ensure that there is a “predictable upper limit to the price that 
cellulosic biofuel producers can charge for a gallon of cellulosic biofuel....” 110 EPA also 
evaluated potential unintended consequences of this provision and solicited comments on 
additional restrictions. EPA recogni zed that additional restrictions, such as those called for by 
some commenters at the recent public hearing, would be counter to the purpose of the cellulosic 
waiver provision. 

VI. El5 RVP Waiver 

Several stakeholders testifying at the June 9, 2016 public hearing implored EPA to extend the 1.0 
RVP waiver to E15 blends. API does not support such an extension. Section 211(h)(1) of the 
CAA restricts the RVP of summer gasoline sold in the United States, and the Act further grants a 
one pound waiver to E10 blends: 

For fuel blends containing gasoline and 10 percent denatured anhydrous ethanol, the 
Reid vapor pressure limitation under this subsection shall be one pound per square inch 
(psi) greater than the applicable Reid vapor pressure Imitations established unde r 
paragraph (l) ul 

EPA considered the RVP waiver issue for ethanol blends in 1989, prior to the 1990 amendments, 
when EPA set an interim RVP level that was 1 psi higher “for gasoline -ethanol blends 

commonly known as gasohol.” EPA promulgated RVP regulations in 1990 that again granted 

1 1 O 

a 1.0 psi allowance for E10. ' It revisited the issue again in 1991, when it modified its RVP 

regulations the following year and clarified that the one pound waiver was limited to ethanol 
blends between nine and ten percent. 114 


110 Id. 

111 42 U.S.C. § 7545(h)(4). 

112 54 FR 11868, 11879 

113 55 FR 23658,23660 

114 56 FR 64704, 64708 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005568-00043 



More recently, in the context of the El 5 partial waiver decisions and the Misfueling Mitigation 
Rule, EPA again reviewed the policies underlying the one pound RVP waiver and determined 
that it should not be extended to El5. In granting the partial waiver for E15 in 2010, EPA 
explicitly based its evaporative emissions analysis on the fact that El5 would NOT receive the 
one pound waiver that E10 does. EPA reached the same conclusion in 2011 when it extended the 
partial waiver to cover 2001 and newer light duty motor vehicles. 115 In the Federal Register 
notice for the Misfueling Mitigation Rule, EPA again reviewed the comprehensive history of the 
one pound waiver and concluded again that it should only apply to fuel blends containing up to 
ten percent ethanol. 

VII. El5 Labeling 

API submitted a request in April 2015 for EPA to clarify that E15 is a gasoline, and the retail 
sale of E15 as flex fuel is prohibited by regulation. We remain concerned that in neglecting to 
address the issue is resulting in confusion in the marketplace and creating an unlevel playing 
field for gasoline retailers that abide by the EPA’s rules. 

As a result of EPA’s CAA section 211(f) substantially similar waiver for El 5, the fuel is 

classified as gasoline under EPA’s regulations (not sometimes gasoline and sometimes flex -fuel) 
and is subject to EPA’s summer RVP and pump label regulations. Both the EPA regulations and 
the CAA could not be clearer. As EPA has consistently recognized, E15 does not qualify for the 
one pound waiver and must meet the summertime RVP requirements to be legally sold. The 
attempt to label and sell El5 as “flex -fuel” is an unlawful attempt to bypass the existing RVP 
regulatory requirements. If this labeling is allowed, then theoretically, the same logic could apply 
to virtually any blend of ethanol and gasoline such as E10. 

Some ethanol groups have a ctively endorsed the practice of relabeling El 5 as flex -fuel to 
circumvent the RVP controls. A recent op -ed in the Des Moines Register clearly states a 
misinterpretation of the regulations “ every simmer when the calendar turns to June, I’m no 
longer allow ed to sell El 5 to 2001 and newer vehicles. It can he sold to flex -fuel vehicles 
onlyl' 116 A lack of clarification from EPA is leading not only to misinterpretations from 
individual station owners, but ethanol trade associations promoting the practice of relabeling El 5 
pumps in the summer as FFV only. EPA should clarify the regulations and prevent an un - 
level playing field in the marketplace. 

VIII. RIN Carry-over 

EPA should adjust renewable fuel volumes downward as needed to ensure that cany over RINs 
are not intentionally drawn down, but instead remain fully available to meet unforeseen events 


115 76 Fed. Reg. 4662, 4663 

116 Good, Charlie. “Summer brings ethanol quirk to Iowa gas stations.” June 1, 2016, The Des 
Moines Register http://www.desmoinesregister.eom/storv/opinion/columnists/iowa- 
view/20 16/06/0 l/summer-brings-ethanol-quirk-iowa-gas-stations/851938 08/ 

Lane, Isabel. “El5 blends will be good for the summer, says American Coalition for 
Ethanol” May 25, 2014, Biofuels Digest. 

44 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005568-00044 



and facilitate market functionality. EPA has estimated 1.72 billion carryover RINs are available 
for compliance after 2013 and has not assumed an intentional drawdown through 2017. 


In finalizing renewable fuel volume standards for 2013, EPA relied on carry -over RINs for 
meeting statutory volumes of advanced and total renewable fuels. Subsequent to finalizing 
volume standards for 2013, EPA did not finalize standards f or years 2014 to 2016 " until 

December 14, 2015. During this time period, EPA proposed standards for 2014, for years 2014 - 
2016, and finalized standards for years 2014-2016 that took a different approach in the treatment 
of carryover RINs. EPA reverted to earlier rulemaking and focused on the important role of 
carryover RINs: “.. .to provide flexibility in the face of a variety of circumstances that could 
limit the availability of RINs. More specifically, carryover RINs provide a mechanism for 
offsetting the negative effects of fluctuations in either supply of or demand for renewable 
fuels.' 


119 


This important function provided by carryover RINs was reaffirmed by EPA in final rulemaking 
for years 2014 to 2016 where EPA agreed with commenters on RINs providing f lexibility and 
operability to the RFS program. 

To the extent that market conditions and available carryover RINs change, EPA should adjust 
renewable fuel volumes downward to adhere to their proposed approach for 2017 in that 
collective carryover RINs not intentionally be drawn down and that renewable fuel volumes are 
not set at levels that envision a reduction in carryover RINs. While EPA discusses its aim for 
carryover RIN neutrality in the 2017 proposal (i.e. collective carryover RINs not expected to 
increase after 2016 nor intentionally drawn down), there are strong indications that EPA’s 
proposed volumes are not achieving the goal of preserving the collective number of carryover 
RINs. As reported by Oil Price Information Service (OPIS) and Reuters , a private firm has 
predicted that carryover RINs will decline to 1.39 billion at the end of 2016 and further decline 
to 786 million by the end of 2017. The private firm has attributed this decline in carryover RINs, 
along with higher and more volatile RIN prices, to EPA’s proposed biofuel volumes. 

EPA must also account for RINs deemed invalid in setting RFS standards to maintain the total 
inventory of RIN carryover. A recent report indicates that 60 million fraudulent RINs were 
generated. " The replacement of any fraudulent RINs may result in a drawdown of carry -over 
RINs in 2017, particularly if EPA finalizes the overly aggressive RFS targets as EPA proposes. 

The potential economic harm and market disruptions of setting renewable fuel volumes at levels 
too high to be absorbed into the market results from an insufficient number of RINs has been 
analyzed by NERA Economic Consulting. EPA has recognized real world constraints that exist 


118 80 Federal Register. No. 239, December 14, 2015. 

119 78 Federal Register. Nov 230, November 29, 2013. 

1 90 

' http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-biofuels-idUSLlN19L14A 

191 

’ http://www.biodieselmaeazine.eom/articles/l 313144/2-tIorida-men-plead-guiltv-to- 
multistate-biodiesel-fraud-scheme 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005568-00045 



in limiting the supply of renewable fuels, and thereby the available number of RINs and potential 
reliance on carryover RINs, for meeting compliance obligations. 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005568-00046 



A Preliminary Assessment of RIN Market Dynamics, RIN Prices, and Their Effects 

Dallas Burkholder, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, US EPA 
May 14,2015 


Executive Summary 

In 2013 the price of renewable identification numbers (RINs) for renewable fuels 
generated under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program increased significantly. This 
document examines available data in an attempt to describe and explain the factors that 
caused this increase in the price of one variety of renewable fuel (D6) RINs, and the impact 
this increase in RIN prices may have had on retail fuel prices. We also examine the impact 
of high RIN prices on merchant refiners (i.e. refiners who do not blend the majority of the 
petroleum products they produce with renewable fuels), some of whom argue that they are 
disadvantaged relative to integrated refiners (i.e. refiners who blend a volume of petroleum 
products with renewable fuels greater than or equal to the volume of petroleum products 
they produce) by high RIN prices. For the purposes of this document we have primarily 
considered available data from 2013, and have assumed constant renewable volume 
obligations (RVOs). This document does not quantify the total cost of the RFS program to 
consumers or other parties. We acknowledge, however, that the program is likely to have a 
cost if the cost of renewable fuels is greater than the petroleum based fuels they replace on 
an energy equivalent basis and if this cost outweighs the overall decrease in the cost of 
transportation fuel that results from increased fuel supply. 1 

In examining the available data we found that the rise in D6 RIN prices can largely be 
explained by the increasing total renewable fuel requirement of the RFS program. For the 
first time in 2013 this standard was established at a level beyond what could be achieved 
by the blending of ethanol as E10. This meant that the D6 RIN price was largely driven by 
the marginal cost of blending and marketing ethanol as E85, or the cost of blending other 
non-ethanol renewable fuels where available, since nearly all gasoline sold in the United 
States already contained 10 percent ethanol. The demand price for ethanol sold in an E85 
blend is significantly less than the demand price for ethanol sold as an E10 blend, as the 
lower energy density of the fuel, and therefore lower fuel economy of a vehicle operating 
on E85, are more noticeable in higher level ethanol blends. Alternative fuel choices to E85, 
such as E10, are also widely available, giving consumers the opportunity to purchase the 
lowest cost fuel. With the exception of two brief spikes in the price of D6 RINs, which may 
be the result of the market adjusting to new supply and demand realities, 2 the D6 RIN 


1 Several parties have credited the increased availability of renewable fuels with a decrease in the market 
price of petroleum derived fuels (relative to a scenario with no renewable fuels) as renewable fuels increase 
the global supply of transportation fuel. While we acknowledge that increasing available volumes of 
renewable fuels may have had some effect on global petroleum prices, there is much uncertainty surrounding 
the magnitude of this impact and quantifying it is beyond the scope of this document 

2 These price spikes, reported by Oil Price Information Service (OPIS), may overstate the average RIN price as 
many RINs are purchased through long term contracts or acquired when attached to renewable fuels. The 
prices reported by OPIS are more reflective of the price for separated RINs in the spot market. 


1 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005569-00001 



prices in 2013 generally reflect what would be expected as the demand price for ethanol 
shifts from a volumetric relationship with gasoline, as was the case for E10, to an energy 
equivalent relationship with gasoline, as is expected to be the case for E85. We do not find 
evidence that the price of D6 RINs was driven by scarcity pricing, 3 as some have suggested. 

While R1N prices were significantly higher in 2013 than in previous years, we did not see, 
nor would we expect to see, a corresponding net increase in the overall retail price of 
transportation fuels across the entire fuel pool. This is because the RIN price, rather than 
acting as an additional cost, generally acts as a transfer payment between parties that 
blend renewable fuels and obligated parties who produce or import petroleum-based fuels 
and are required to obtain RINs for compliance purposes. 4 RINs are generated by 
renewable fuel producers and sold attached to volumes of renewable fuels to fuel blenders 
or obligated parties. When the RINs are separated from the renewable fuel and sold 
independently, the RIN seller may use the revenue received for the RIN to discount the 
effective cost of the renewable fuel. In order to recover the cost of purchasing RINs, 
however, obligated parties are expected to increase the selling price of the petroleum 
products they produce. If fuel prices are fully flexible, markets are perfectly competitive, 
and we assume no changes to the price of renewable or petroleum based fuels, these two 
price impacts, the discounting of renewable fuels enabled by the sale of the RINs and the 
higher petroleum prices that result from the cost of purchasing RINs, are expected to offset 
each other, resulting in the RIN price having no net impact across the entire fuel pool. 

We note, however, that higher RIN prices are expected to have an impact on the retail price 
of transportation fuels such as E85, E10, and diesel fuel based on their renewable content. 
In some cases high RIN prices are expected to decrease the retail price of the fuel, while in 
others they are expected to result in an increase in the retail price of the fuel. High RIN 
prices are expected to reduce the price of fuel blends that contain a higher percentage of 
renewable fuels, such as E85 or B20, while increasing the price of fuels that contain little or 
no renewable fuels. 5 An increase in D6 RIN prices, as seen in 2013, is expected to result in 
a significant decrease in the price of E85, a very small decrease in the price of E10, and an 
increase in the price of diesel fuel. This is because the RIN costs of a gallon of fuel (the 
price increase of the petroleum blendstock due to the RIN obligations) is proportional to 
the amount of petroleum blendstock contained in a fuel blend, while the RIN value (the 
effective price reduction of the renewable fuel content enabled by the sale of the RIN) is 
proportional to the renewable content of the blend. These price impacts are one of the 
primary ways the RFS program can incentivize the increased blending and consumption of 


3 Scarcity pricing occurs when the price of a good increases significantly due to concerns over a limited 
supply. In this context we use the term scarcity pricing to refer to a situation where the price of D6 RINs rises 
significantly beyond what would be expected when considering the price of ethanol and the consumer 
demand price for ethanol when sold as E85. 

4 In some cases the fuel blender and obligated party may be the same company. 

5 This is expected to be true in a competitive market, however many of these expected price reductions may 
not be realized for fuels such as E85 that at the current time generally face little competition at the wholesale 
and retail level. As the availability of these fuels increases we anticipate that a higher proportion of the 
expected price decrease will be realized by consumers. 


2 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005569-00002 



renewable fuels in the United States. In blends such as E10, RIN prices are expected to 
have little overall impact as the RIN cost is approximately equal to the RIN value. 

Finally, we examined available data to determine if the expected impacts of high RIN prices 
could be observed. We were able to observe these impacts in several areas, notably in 
price differences between petroleum-based fuels with and without RIN obligations and in 
lower wholesale and retail prices for fuel blends containing higher percentages of 
renewable fuels. RIN prices are not expected to have a significant impact on the wholesale 
or retail prices of E10, the most widely used transportation fuel in the United States, as the 
rise in the market price of the petroleum blendstock due to the RIN cost is offset by the 
lower effective price of the ethanol portion of the blend enabled by the value of the RIN. 

The higher market prices for petroleum fuels with RIN obligations relative to those without 
RIN obligations suggest that obligated parties are generally recovering their RIN costs in 
the price of the petroleum fuels they produce. Merchant refiners, who largely purchase 
separated RINs to meet their RFS obligations, should not therefore be disadvantaged by 
higher RIN prices, as they are recovering these costs in the sale price of their products. 
Were this not the case, merchant refiners could, and we expect would, avail themselves of 
other compliance strategies such as contractual arrangements and investing in fuel 
blending and distribution infrastructure, which are available to merchant refiners looking 
for alternative methods for meeting their RIN obligations. 

Each of these conclusions, and the available data that EPA examined to arrive at these 
conclusions, is presented in further detail below. While the focus of this document is 
explaining the rise in RIN prices and resulting fuels marketplace impacts in 2013, we 
expect a similar set of issues and market forces will be at work in future years. 

We note that this document examines available data through June 2014. EPA intends to 
continue to monitor available data and update the assessments contained in this document 
as time allows and data becomes available. EPA also welcomes feedback and input on our 
methodology and conclusions. 


Background 

On March 26, 2010 EPA published changes to the RFS program regulations, as required by 
the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), to ensure that transportation 
fuel sold in the United States contains volumes of renewable fuel that are either specified in 
the statute or set by EPA pursuant to specified waiver authorities. The EISA amendments 
increased the volume of renewable fuel required to be blended into transportation fuel to 
36 billion gallons by 2022. As a part of the RFS regulations, EPA implemented a system for 
tracking the production and use of qualifying renewable fuel using Renewable 
Identification Numbers or RINs. These RINs are generated by renewable fuel producers or 
importers and are bought and sold "attached" to the renewable fuel until the fuel is 
purchased by an "obligated party" (a refiner or importer of gasoline or diesel fuel) or 
blended with a petroleum-based transportation fuel. At that point the RIN is "separated” 


3 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005569-00003 



from the fuel and may thereafter be independently bought or sold until it is retired to meet 
an obligated party's renewable volume obligation or for some other reason. 

By providing an opportunity for obligated parties to fulfill their obligations under the RFS 
program by purchasing RINs, the R1N market allows obligated parties the flexibility to 
choose whether or not to be directly involved in the blending of renewable fuels. Obligated 
parties may choose to acquire RINs by directly blending renewable fuels, by purchasing 
renewable fuel, separating the RINs, and selling the renewable fuel without RINs, or by 
purchasing separated RINs on the spot market or through other contractual arrangements. 
While most RINs are used for compliance in the year they are generated, up to 20% of an 
obligated party's renewable volume obligation (RVO) may be satisfied with RINs generated 
in the previous year. This allows excess RINs to function as an inventory in the RIN trading 
market and provides compliance flexibility to the obligated parties as excess (or “carry 
over”) RINs can act as a buffer for obligated parties to protect themselves against 
unforeseen changes in the RIN market. Obligated parties may also defer their RFS 
obligation, in whole or in part, to the following year, provided that the RIN obligation is 
satisfied together with the party's next year's RVO. 

In 2013 the price for Renewable Fuel RINs (D6) increased substantially, from an average of 
a few cents per RIN in previous years to over $1.00 per RIN in the summer of 2013 (see 
Figure 1 below). The swift run up in the RIN price led a variety of stakeholders to conduct 
analyses looking into the causes and impacts of the increase. This document presents 
EPA's assessment of the cause of the high RIN prices, the expected impacts on retail fuel 
prices of high RIN payments, and the impact of high RIN prices on obligated parties. 
Throughout, this document focuses on D6 RINs; references to RIN prices are to D6 RINs 
unless otherwise noted. 


4 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005569-00004 



Figure 1 


RIN Prices 



rft 

frt 

ft) 

ft). 


ft) 

,ef> 

as- 

: . ; as 

. W:- 

as- 

■ft) 



■■ay 

ay 



rri 

T“1 

r"i 

f-j 

. ■ 




•tHI 

■xri-: 

rl 

7 r-i 

as; 

■f-t 

-rS 



■ 

i?■***% 


© 

•. <5© 

. C 3 : 



as 



;© 

C 5 

as - 

© 


jfij-ji-. 


;■!© 

<M 

...jN.: 


rsi 


C%J 


„ fsl 

fM 


;f 4 ; 


■ . i*N| 


veSi 

rsl 

as| 

• : -*N 




as*.. 






v.s***': 

SS* 

.'/Sf 7 



' . '***.■. 



:■>**: 

M 


fSl; 


:'-rNl 






: |SI; 


as 

as} 

fS 

aM 

fSl 




• • : • 





••Si,- . 


Ss* 

S* ••• 


. 






fM 


ay- ■ 



-•f***. 



..as 

aal ■ 


rS 

;iN' ; 

as 

ay 

m 

■10 




WI RlN Prices from ©P& Ethanol and Biodiesel information Service 


RIN Market Overview 

In attempting to describe and explain the many factors that affect RIN prices or the effect of 
RIN prices on fuel prices and market participants, it is helpful to begin with a look at the 
roles different RIN market participants play. RINs are generated by renewable fuel 
producers. 6 RINs may be generated any time after the fuel is produced but before the fuel 
leaves the custody of the renewable fuel producer. Each RIN is "attached” to a gallon of 
renewable fuel and must be sold with that gallon of renewable fuel for which it was 
generated. 

After a gallon of renewable fuel is sold, it is generally blended with a petroleum based fuel 
to produce a transportation fuel such as E10, E85, or B5. When a gallon of renewable fuel 
with an attached RIN is purchased by an obligated party 7 or blended to create a 


6 Renewable fuel must be made from “renewable biomass" in accordance with a “pathway" determined by 
EPA to satisfy lifecycle greenhouse gas reduction requirements (or be grandfathered from such 
requirements) and be produced for use as transportation fuel, jet fuel or home heating oil. Pathways are a 
combination of feedstock, finished fuel type, and production process. For a list of currently approved 
pathways see 40 CFR 80.1426 

7 In the RFS program an obligated party is defined as any refiner that produces gasoline or diesel fuel in the 
48 contiguous states or Hawaii, or any importer that imports gasoline or diesel fuel, into the 48 contiguous 
states or Hawaii 


5 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005569-00005 
























transportation fuel the owner of the fuel may separate the RIN from the renewable fuel. 
The RIN can then be used by the obligated party to demonstrate compliance with their RFS 
obligation, or it can be sold to another obligated party seeking RINs to fulfill their 
renewable volume obligation. Figure 2 presents a basic schematic of the RIN/renewable 
fuel market. 


Figure 2 

Product Transfers in the Renewable Fuel and RIN Market® 



Figure 2 greatly simplifies the reality of a complex marketplace. For example, many 
obligated parties also own fuel blending operations, and others may purchase renewable 
fuel with an attached RIN, retain the RIN, and then sell the renewable fuel without the RIN. 
In practice several parties may take ownership of a renewable fuel before it is blended with 
a petroleum blendstock to produce a transportation fuel. Similarly separated RINs may be 
sold to brokers or aggregators before being sold to obligated parties. Where there are 
additional parties participating in the marketplace not shown in the graphic above, the 
commodity price received by one of the depicted parties will not be equal to the purchase 
price paid by the party who ultimately receives the commodity as the intermediate parties 
will require a fee for their services. We do not expect these fees to be significant, as the RIN 
and transportation fuel marketplaces are generally competitive. 

There are also cases where a single company may be active in multiple areas of the 
transportation fuel market place. Examples include an ethanol production facility that 
blends finished transportation fuel, or a refiner who owns fuel blending terminals. In these 
cases certain transactions may take place within a single company rather than between two 
companies. The same fundamental transactions, however, still take place, whether they are 
internal to one company or external and involve different entities. 


8 In the graphics in this document we have depicted the renewable fuel producer, fuel blender, obligated 
party, and fuel retailer as independent entities. In reality two or more of these functions may be conducted 
by the same company. Traditionally many obligated parties have also functioned as fuel blenders, and 
increasingly renewable fuel producers are also producing and marketing renewable fuel blends. 


6 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005569-00006 







Factors Affecting the RIN Price 

EPA designed the RIN program with the intention of providing a market-based compliance 
mechanism that would cause minimal disruption in the transportation fuel marketplace, 
while also providing EPA with the necessary assurance that the mandated volumes of 
renewable fuel would be used in the transportation sector. EPA sought to provide 
flexibility to refiners, importers, and other producers of petroleum-based transportation 
fuel by allowing obligated parties to purchase RINs and rely on the existing renewable fuel 
production, distribution, and blending marketplace rather than requiring each obligated 
party to directly blend a quantity of renewable fuel equal to their renewable volume 
obligation. If the RIN market is functioning efficiently the RIN price should be 
approximately equal to the difference between a renewable fuel's supply price and its 
demand price (the price the market is willing to pay for the renewable fuel as a 
transportation fuel). The RIN price provides the incentive the renewable fuel producer 
needs to continue to produce renewable fuel up to the mandated volume even if the 
demand price for the fuel would not otherwise cover the cost of production of the 
renewable fuel. 

With this in mind, EPA examined available price data to determine if changes in the supply 
and demand price for renewable fuels explained the rising and variable D6 RIN prices 
observed in 2013. Determining a supply price was straightforward: EPA used ethanol 9 
price data reported weekly by USDA. 10 

Determining the demand price for ethanol, however, is more complicated. Ethanol, in its 
unblended form, cannot be used as a transportation fuel by vehicles in the United States. It 
must be blended with gasoline to produce transportation fuels such as E10 (containing 
10% ethanol) or higher level blends such as E85 (containing between 51% and 83% 
ethanol with a national average ethanol content of 74% as reported by the Energy 
Information Administration (EIA)). 

We posit that the demand price for ethanol in a blended transportation fuel varies 
significantly depending on the ethanol blend level. The vast majority of ethanol sold as 
transportation fuel in the United States is sold as E10. When ethanol is sold in an E10 
blend we believe that the demand price is approximately equal to the price of the gasoline 
fuel into which it is blended on a volumetric basis, despite the fact that ethanol contains 
approximately 33% less energy per gallon than gasoline. 

There are several reasons we believe this to be the case. Due to the relatively low level of 
ethanol in E10 the fuel economy reduction of E10 as compared to E0 (gasoline without 
ethanol) is fairly small (approximately 3%) and not noticeable by most consumers. 
Customers therefore generally do not seek price discounts for E10 v. E0. Furthermore, for 


9 Throughout this document all references to ethanol are to denatured ethanol 

10 Data recorded by Agricultural Marketing Resource Center. These prices are for ethanol with attached RINs. 
Accessed online April 10, 2014 <http://www.agmrc.org/renewable_energy/ethanol/midwest-ethanol-cash- 
prices-basis-data-and-charts-for-selected-states/> 


7 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005569-00007 



the relatively few consumers who are aware of the slightly lower energy content (and 
therefore lower fuel economy) of E10 as compared to EO, options to purchase EO are very 
limited as virtually all gasoline sold in the United States now contains 10% ethanol. Where 
EO is available, it is generally priced at a significant premium relative to E10, thus negating 
any potential value it may have offered due to its higher energy content. For a further 
discussion of the pricing of ethanol as E10 see the 2012 Notice of Decision Regarding 
Requests for a Waiver of the Renewable Fuel Standard. 11 

If the demand price for ethanol as transportation fuel when blended as E10 is 
approximately equal to the price of gasoline on a volumetric basis, rather than an energy- 
equivalent basis, we would expect D6 R1N prices to be very low whenever the ethanol price 
is below the gasoline price. This is because fuel blenders can generate profit by purchasing 
ethanol for a lower price than gasoline and sell the blended E10 at a price approximately 
equal to that of the gasoline blendstock on a per gallon basis despite the lower energy 
content of the fuel. No R1N value is necessary for the blending of ethanol to be profitable 
under these conditions. This was the case throughout the history of the RFS program until 
the early months of 2013. As shown in the graph below, from July 2010, the effective date 
of the updated RFS regulations, through the end of 2012 ethanol was generally priced 
below gasoline on a volumetric basis, and D6 RIN prices were only a few cents, likely 
attributable to RIN transaction costs. In 2013 the price of ethanol generally remained 
below the price of gasoline on a volumetric basis, yet the price of D6 RINs increased 
substantially. We believe a significant factor in this change in RIN price was a saturation of 
the E10 pool requiring that any additional volumes of ethanol be blended as E85. 

JL JL O */ 


11 FRL-9754-4 


8 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005569-00008 



Figure 3 

Ethanol, Gasoline, and D6 RIN Prices (July 2010 - June 2014) 



■■.•Si 


Ethanol Price 
Gasoline Price 
06 RIN Price 


$3.50 


Note: The ethanol blenders tax credit expired on December 31, 2011, likely resulting in the 
decline in ethanol price in January 2012. The price spike in March/April 2014 was 
primarily the result of extremely cold winter temperatures leading to rail congestion^ 


When ethanol is sold as an E85 blend available information suggests that the ethanol has a 
significantly different consumer demand price. E85 blends contain significantly less energy 
per gallon than E10 (approximately 22% less energy per gallon assuming E85 contains 
74% ethanol). This lower energy content results in a decrease in fuel economy of 
approximately 22% when owners of flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs) operate their vehicles on 
E85 rather than E10. Not only is the decrease in fuel economy more noticeable to fuel 
customers, but the fuel customers also have the ability to choose between purchasing E85 
or E10, as E10 is available everywhere that E85 is. For E85 to appeal to most customers, 
therefore, it would need to be priced in a manner that accounts for the fuel economy 
penalty, as well as any "inconvenience factor” associated with its lack of availability relative 
to E10 and the need to refuel more frequently. 


We argue that the more noticeable decrease in fuel economy and the greater availability of 
alternative fuel choices has a significant impact on consumer decisions regarding 
purchases of E85. While some FFV owners, primarily motivated by factors other than 
minimizing fuel costs**, may purchase E85 at prices above energy parity, the majority of 


12 For further information on this issue see “Rail congestion, cold weather raise ethanol spot prices.” Today in 
Energy. U.S. Energy Information Administration, April 3, 2014. Web. September 25, 2014 
<http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=15691>. 

13 Consumers may purchase E85 when priced above energy parity for reasons such as supporting the rural 
economy, a desire to buy a domestically sourced fuel, E85's perceived environmental attributes, or 
government fleet mandates. Alternatively some customers may avoid purchasing E85 even when it is 


9 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005569-00009 





















potential E85 customers will likely only purchase E85 if it is priced at a per gallon discount 
equal to or greater than the difference in energy content between E85 and E10. 14 If this is 
the case, the demand price for ethanol as a transportation fuel in an E85 blend is 
proportional to gasoline on an energy-equivalent, rather than a volumetric basis. This 
means that we would expect the true demand price for ethanol blended as E85 to be 
approximately 67% of the price of gasoline. 15 We would further expect that in a 
competitive market the D6 RIN price would be approximately equal to the difference 
between the price of ethanol relative to the price of gasoline on a volumetric basis (or near 
zero if ethanol were cheaper) when ethanol was primarily sold as E10, as it was until the 
end of 2012, and approximately equal to the difference on an energy-equivalent basis (67% 
of the price of gasoline) when the E10 market is effectively saturated and additional 
ethanol must be blended as E85, as it was in 2013. The prices of ethanol, gasoline, and an 
ethanol-equivalent gallon of gasoline (67% of a gallon) for 2012 and 2013 are shown below 
(Figure 4), followed by a graph that compares the difference between these prices and the 
observed D6 RIN price in 2012 and 2013 (Figure 5). 


Figure 4 

Ethanol Price, Gasoline Price and Energy-Equivalent Gasoline Price 


$3 30 

10 


$2.90 
$2.70 
$2.50 

$230 

tn JSi 

ft * jl, } 

$ 1.90 -k 

■Mrtvm 

il.70 
$1.50 



Ethanol Price 


Gasoline Price 


rnmmmmfm. 


PrlcalEiprgy:' 


available and priced below energy parity due to concerns about fuel quality, a desire to avoid more frequent 
refueling, or a lack of knowledge that the fuel is compatible with their vehicle. 

14 Informed customer decisions are often complicated by a lack of information on the precise ethanol content 
of E85. E85 may contain anywhere from 51% to 83% ethanol. Uncertainty regarding the ethanol content of 
E85 may hinder a customers ability to effectively choose the lower cost fuel on an energy-equivalent basis. 

15 The energy content of ethanol (77,000 BTU/gallon) is approximately 67% of the energy content of gasoline 
or E0 (115,000 BTU/gallon). 


10 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005569-00010 






















Figure 5 

D6 RIN Price and Difference Between Ethanol and Gasoline Price (Volumetric and Energy- 

Equivalent) 

. _____ —— —. 


$1.50 

$ 1,00 

$0.50 


$0.00 4 H|® 


$0.50 

$ 1.00 

-$1.50 



Ss*' 

M&: 

***** 

■ 


f*4 

, : Lt% 

•w 


•jSt; 


■. 

ui 

^S:'. 

o. : . 


■■Cs. 

■>< 

.tfY 


■ f*sj 


■■fNl - 
: :©. 

■i/V-. 


ffS. 

t-i 

C!5 

iN: 

U*t 

'****. 

O': 


:*T' 

■ ■#** ** ! 

:■'© 

f%l. 

•:?**»**■ 


'T'i 

■ SI: 
ys|: 

Vfr : 


D 6 RIM Price 


Sbariol Price Minus 
Gasoline Price 




Ethanol Price Minus 
iJKvfSasoliiJi:: 
Price|Energy: 
Ecpisalentf- 


For the first time in 2013, the portion of obligated parties' total renewable volume 
obligations that could be satisfied with D6 RINs (the total volume obligation for non- 
advanced biofuels) exceeded the quantity of RINs that could be obtained by blending 
ethanol with gasoline to create E10. Because the amount of ethanol that could be blended 
as E10 was effectively capped, obligated parties looked to alternative sources of RINs, such 
as increased blending of ethanol as E85, the blending of additional non-ethanol biofuels, or 
the use of carry over RINs (RINs generated in 2012 available to satisfy 2013 obligations). 

In the ethanol market, we argue that the customer demand price shifted from a price based 
in part on gasoline on a volumetric basis (as it had been when increased blending of 
ethanol as E10 had represented the marginal gallon of ethanol), to one based in part on 
gasoline on an energy-equivalent basis, as increased ethanol blending of ethanol as E85 
now represented the marginal gallon of ethanol. Figure 5 illustrates this shift. Throughout 
the vast majority of the time from January 2012 through June 2014 ethanol was cheaper 
than gasoline on a volumetric basis. Prior to reaching the E10 blendwall in 2013 the 
demand price for ethanol was primarily based on that of gasoline on a volumetric basis and 
D6 RINs were only a few cents, effectively representing transaction costs. After reaching 
the blendwall the demand price for ethanol shifts to being based primarily on the price of 
gasoline on an energy-equivalent basis. Because ethanol was more expensive than gasoline 
on an energy-equivalent basis from January 2013 through June 2014 the D6 RIN prices 
help offset the difference between the supply price of ethanol and the new demand price 
when the marginal gallon of ethanol is sold as E85. 

This higher D6 RIN value also provided an increased opportunity for the increased 
blending of non-ethanol fuels, which may not have been profitable to blend into 
transportation fuel with low D6 RIN prices. In each of these cases, increased blending of 
ethanol as E85 and increased use of non-ethanol biofuels, the supply price exceeded the 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005569-00011 













demand price for these renewable fuels when used as a transportation fuel. As a result, 

RIN prices increased in 2013 as shown in Figure 1. The increasing D6 RIN price provided 
an incentive not only for increased blending of ethanol as E85, but also for the increased 
production and import of non-ethanol fuels such as biodiesel and for a draw-down in the 
bank of carry over RINs. 

During the period of high RIN prices in the middle of 2013 some parts of the United States 
saw growth in E85 sales. This growth was most notable in states, such as Minnesota and 
Iowa, where the RIN value was most likely to be passed on to the consumer due to 
competition at both the wholesale and retail level in the E85 market. 16 However, 
consumption of E85 remained limited despite the high RIN prices due to a variety of factors 
including a lack of infrastructure for the blending, sale, and consumption of E85, and the 
lack of competitive markets leading to limited RIN value pass through to consumers in 
many markets. 


Figure 6 

Monthly E85 Sales in 2013 for States with Available Information 


HI 

o 

0 

Q 


200,000 

0 


v'S: 

& 



Minnesota 

California 

Imm 

... ■ i. . M 

Kansas 



High D6 RIN prices had an even more significant impact on the production and 
consumption of non-ethanol biofuels such as biodiesel and renewable diesel, which did not 
face the same infrastructure challenges as ethanol blended as E85. Generation of D6 RINs 
for biodiesel and renewable diesel increased from approximately 6 million and 1 million in 
2011 and 2012 respectively to over 250 million in 2013. 17 Generation of D4 (biomass- 
based diesel) RINs were also at the highest levels achieved under the RFS program. The 
increased availability of these fuels, combined with the availability of carry over RINs from 
excess production in 2012 helped to moderate the price of D6 RINs in 2013 despite the 


16 According to data from DOE’s Alternative Fuels Data Center approximately 20% of all E85 stations in the 
United States in 2013 were located in Minnesota or Iowa 

17 All RIN production numbers from EMTS 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005569-00012 




















limited ability of R1N prices or volume mandates to increase the consumption of ethanol as 
E85. 


On the basis of the data available to EPA, we believe much of the increase in 2013 D6 R1N 
can be explained by the arrival of the E10 blendwall in 2013 and the resulting change in 
demand price for ethanol. These factors alone, however, do not provide a complete 
explanation of the observed D6 R1N prices. As shown in Figure 5, from May 2013 through 
August 2013, spot D6 RIN prices were substantially higher than would have been expected 
based solely on the prices of ethanol and gasoline. This may have been due to a variety of 
factors, including: limited blending and retail infrastructure for E85, limited ability for RIN 
prices to affect the retail price of E85, the RIN price needed to incentivize increasing the 
production or import of non-ethanol fuels, and uncertainty about the final RFS standards 
for 2013 and 2014. It may also be the case that the reported prices for D6 RINs reflect the 
price of a relatively small number of RINs traded on the spot market rather than the D6 
RINs purchased through long term contracts and are therefore more volatile and not 
necessarily reflective of the average D6 RIN price. Regardless, these elevated D6 RIN prices 
increased the incentive for the production, import, and consumption of non-ethanol fuels, 
notably biodiesel produced from grandfathered facilities,^ which were eligible to generate 
D6 RINs and could now compete in the domestic fuels market as a result of their 
significantly increased RIN value. In other words, renewable fuels that were uneconomic to 
produce or import to satisfy the D6 RIN obligations when RIN prices were only a few cents 
became economic to produce or import with substantially increased D6 RIN prices. 


It is highly speculative and difficult to predict the future price of D6 RINs, as they are 
influenced by multiple factors, including the supply and demand prices for ethanol, the 
price of petroleum, the cost of production of non-ethanol renewable fuels, consumer 
behavior in the E85 market, and availability of alternative compliance mechanisms. 
However, given the fact that the required total renewable fuel volume will likely exceed the 
volume of ethanol that can be blended as E10 in the future, we would not expect D6 RIN 
prices to return to the prices seen from 2010 to 2012.« 


18 Grandfathered facilities are those that commenced construction on or before December 17, 2007, or any 
ethanol plant fired by natural gas, biomass, or a combination thereof that commenced construction before 
December 31, 2009. These facilities are exempt from the 20% GHG reduction requirement for the generation 
of D6 RINs, however they still must use a feedstock that meets the renewable biomass definition, be intended 
for use as transportation fuel or other qualifying uses, and meet all other reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements. 

19 RIN prices could return to historic low levels of a few cents if the price of ethanol or other renewable fuels 
fell sufficiently below the cost of gasoline on an energy equivalent basis 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005569-00013 



Figure 7 

Generation of Non-Ethanol D6 RINs and D6 RIN Price 



*RIN Prices from OPIS Ethanol and Biodiesel Information Services 


RIN Price Impact on Transportation Fuel Prices 

The high RIN prices observed in 2013 prompted questions not only regarding the cause of 
the increase, but also about the impact the RIN prices would have on the retail price of 
transportation fuel. Some have suggested that higher RIN prices necessarily lead to higher 
retail prices for all transportation fuels. 20 Our analysis, however, indicates that this is not 
likely to be the case. In short, this is due to the fact that, rather than being an additional 
cost, RINs can be viewed as transfer payments from obligated parties to renewable fuel 
blenders to incentivize the blending of renewable fuels and the sale of fuel blends with 
higher renewable content. These payments, while having no net impact on the overall cost 
of transportation fuel, can reduce the price of fuels with high renewable content, such as 
E85, at the expense of fuels such as diesel that generally contain a small percentage of 
renewable fuel. This can ultimately increase the demand for renewable fuels by giving the 
fuel blenders a greater incentive to increase the renewable content of the fuel blends they 
sell. 

If the cost of producing ethanol and gasoline blendstocks (or biodiesel and diesel fuel) 
remains unchanged, then the overall cost of the blended fuels should not be impacted by 
RIN prices. 21 This does not mean that there is no cost to increasing the volume of 
renewable fuels required to be blended into the transportation fuel pool. If renewable fuels 
cost more on an energy-equivalent basis than the petroleum fuels they displace there is a 

20 For example see “Gasoline Price Inflated by Ethanol in Oil Boom: Energy Markets" by Mario Parker, 
published by Bloomberg on March 21, 2013. Available online < http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03- 
21/gasoline-price-inflated-by-ethanol-in-oil-boom-energy-markets.html> 

21 As stated in the previous paragraph, however, varying RIN prices are expected to impact the relative prices 
of different fuel types such as E85, E10, EO, B20, B5, etc. 

14 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005569-00014 
























cost to using these renewable fuels; and the higher the required volume of these fuels, the 
higher the cost will be. As can be seen in examining the available data, however, the sharp 
rise in D6 R1N prices did not have a measurable impact on the prices of ethanol with 
attached RINs (see Figure 8). Renewable fuel blenders acquire RINs by purchasing 
renewable fuels with attached RINs. 22 They sell these RINs to obligated parties, who look 
to recover the cost of these RINs in the price of the blendstocks they sell to the fuel 
blenders. Higher blendstock prices are in turn offset by the RIN value captured by blenders 
when they blend renewable fuels. We expect that higher RIN prices may increase the 
magnitude of these payments between obligated parties and renewable fuel blenders, as 
well as the relative pricing of fuel blends containing higher volumes of renewable fuels 
versus those containing little or no renewable fuel (see Figures 9 and 10 below), but that 
the net impact of these transfers on the cost of transportation fuel would be minimal. 


•. I I 

l 

<2 50 J 

•rip:*. >^l9: | 


Figure 8 

Ethanol (with attached RIN) and D6 RIN Prices 

IlilO- 




$ 2.00 

i 

i 

$1.50 [ 




"■ fSf 



F4 

m : ■ 


ff) 




■-.rtf 


- 

■:fH 

rtf 

ri: 

T-f 

: 

■*!!**i- 




• Vijjg.V. 

O 


© 

©;■ 


v©f 

■■ o 


fSl-- 

Vf^f . . 

Ol 



CM 


tsi 


: .. 



vSi* 







m 

it) 

itl 

.lift 

m 

ift 

Iftr 

it) 






• 

* i "***: 

.•**£*. ■ 





■Mri" 



. o. 

rtf 


pVv 


rH 

■. 




ri 




sH 




Ethanol 

Price:; 

D6RIN 

Price 


To illustrate this we examined the expected price of fuel supplied to the retailer for both 
E10 and E85. We did this first assuming a relatively low average RIN price and then again 
using the average RIN prices in 2013. The prices used for this example are shown in Table 
1 below. The RIN obligation percentages are based on the 2013 volume requirements and 
standards. We note that because the standards are nested, the D6 RIN obligation 
percentage is equal to the total renewable fuel percentage standard minus the advanced 
biofuel percentage standard. Similarly, the D5 RIN obligation percentage is equal to the 
advanced biofuel percentage standard minus the biomass-based diesel percentage 
standard. For this example we have ignored the very small cellulosic biofuel requirement. 


22 As noted previously, renewable fuels with attached RINs can be purchased directly by obligated parties, 
and many obligated parties also blend renewable fuels to produce transportation fuel. 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005569-00015 



















The total RIN cost is calculated by summing the product of the RIN obligation percentages 
by the corresponding RIN price for each of the RIN types. 23 The structure of the RFS 
program is such that every gallon of gasoline or diesel fuel produced or imported in the 
United States has an equal RIN obligation, including cellulosic, biomass-based diesel, 
advanced, and total renewable RINs. This means that the RIN cost for a gallon of gasoline is 
impacted by the price of the biomass-based diesel RIN, even though biodiesel cannot be 
blended into gasoline. Our examples reflect this structure, with identical RIN costs for 
gasoline and diesel that vary with different RIN prices. For these examples we have 
ignored transportation, overhead, and profit-taking 24 to simplify our analysis. While these 
are all factors that will impact the cost paid by retailers for blended fuels, we would not 
expect them to vary with RIN prices and have therefore not explicitly considered them in 
our example. 


Table 1 


Illustrative Commodity Prices for Exploring RIN Price Impacts on Retail Fuel Prices 



Low RIN Prices 

High RIN Prices 
(2013 Average 
for RIN Prices) 

Ethanol (with attached RIN) 25 

$2.25/gallon 

$2.25/gallon 

Gasoline blendstock (without RIN 
costs) 

$2.75/gallon 

$2.75/gallon 

Biodiesel (with attached RIN) 

$4.00/gallon 

$4.00/gallon 

Diesel blendstock (without RIN costs) 

$3.25/gallon 

$3.25/gallon 

D6 RIN Price 

$0.05 

$0.60 

D4 RIN Price 

$0.50 

$0.73 

D5 RIN Price 

$0.25 

$0.71 

D6 RIN Obligation 

8.12% 

8.12% 

D4 RIN Obligation 

1.13% 

1.13% 

D5 RIN Obligation 

0.49% 

0.49% 

Total RIN Cost per gallon(All RIN 
obligations) 

$0.01 

$0.06 


Using these assumptions for commodity prices, and based on our schematic of the RIN and 
fuel market shown in Figure 2 above, we can follow each of the fuel types through the RIN 
and fuel market to estimate the impacts on the price paid by retailers for both E10 and E85. 

For the low RIN price scenario, we begin with the purchase of ethanol by the fuel blender 
from the renewable fuel producer. In this transaction the fuel blender receives one gallon 


23 Per Gallon RIN Cost = D6 RIN Obligation * D6 RIN Price + D5 RIN Obligation * D5 RIN Price + D4 RIN 
Obligation * D4 RIN Price. This is the RFS “compliance cost" for each gallon of gasoline and diesel produced 
or imported by an obligated party. 

24 EPA has examined some data that suggests increased profit taking during times of high RIN prices in the 
E85 market, but believe this will decrease as competition in the E85 marketplace increases. 

25 As shown in Figure 8, data from 2013 strongly suggests that the price of ethanol with an attached RIN is not 
a function of the RIN price 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005569-00016 




of ethanol and the corresponding D6 RIN from an ethanol fuel producer for $2.25. After 
receiving the ethanol from the ethanol producer the fuel blender separates the D6 RIN and 
sells it to an obligated party for $0.05. The net purchase price for the ethanol without the 
RIN is therefore $2.20. The fuel blender next purchases gasoline blendstock from a refiner. 
The price the refiner would charge for one gallon of gasoline blendstock in the absence of 
the RFS program in this example is assumed to be $2.75 per gallon. Anticipating the need 
to purchase RINs to satisfy the RIN obligation associated with selling the gallon of gasoline 
blendstock, the refiner instead charges the fuel blender $2.76 per gallon ($2.75 for the cost 
of the gasoline blendstock and $0.01 to cover the per gallon cost of the RIN obligations). 
The fuel blender has effectively paid $2.20 per gallon of ethanol ($2.25 per gallon with 
attached RIN - $0.05 cost recovered in the sale of the RIN) and $2.76 per gallon of gasoline 
blendstock ($2.75 for the blendstock + $0.01 RIN recovery cost). The cost of producing 
blended fuels can be calculated by taking the average of these two fuel component costs 
weighted by the proportion of each component in the finished fuel blend “ The resulting 
blended fuel costs are $2.70 per gallon for E10 and $2.35 per gallon of E85. The prices and 
flows of the various commodities are shown in Figure 9 below. 

Figure 9 

Impact of Low RIN Prices on the Cost of Gasoline to Retailers 


Nft Ethanol = $2.20 
($2.25 fuel cost - 

.. iiiSS RlMMtuel e .. 

Ethanol . .S:fpa:ratgd. Do 



A similar scenario can be examined with high RIN prices, such as those observed in 2013. 
For this scenario, we begin in the same place, with the purchase of ethanol by the fuel 
blender from the renewable fuel producer. As in the previous scenario, the fuel blender 
receives one gallon of ethanol and the corresponding D6 RIN from an ethanol fuel producer 
for $2.25. In this case, however, after being separated from the gallon of ethanol the RIN is 
sold to an obligated party for $0.60. The net purchase price for the ethanol without the RIN 
is therefore $1.65 rather than $2.20 in the previous scenario. In response to the higher RIN 


26 For this example we have assumed E10 contains 10% ethanol and 90% gasoline blendstock and E85 
contains 74% ethanol and 26% gasoline blendstock. The equations to calculate the cost are therefore E10 = 
0.1*[net ethanol cost] + 0.9*[net gasoline blendstock cost] and E85 = 0.74*[net ethanol cost] + 0.26*[net 
gasoline blendstock cost]. 


17 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005569-00017 







prices, the refiner must charge more for each gallon of gasoline blendstock sold to cover 
the cost of purchasing RINs to fulfill their RVO. The refiner now charges the fuel blender 
$2.81 per gallon of gasoline blendstock ($2.75 for the cost of the gasoline blendstock and 
$0.06 to cover the cost of the RIN obligations). In this high RIN price scenario, the fuel 
blender has effectively paid $1.65 per gallon of ethanol ($2.25 per gallon with attached RIN 
- $0.60 cost recovered in the sale of the RIN) and $2.81 per gallon of gasoline blendstock 
($2.75 for the blendstock + $0.06 RIN recovery cost). The resulting blended fuel costs are 
$2.69 per gallon for E10 and $1.95 per gallon of E85. The prices and flows of the various 
commodities are shown in Figure 10 below. 

Figure 10 

Impact of High RIN Prices on the Cost of Gasoline to Retailers 


Net fftetanpl = $1.65 
fuefcpst - 

i .I $0.60 RIN value) _ , r r - 

Ethanol Separated D6 



As these two scenarios demonstrate, rising RIN prices alone are not expected to increase 
the price of transportation fuel to retail station owners, however they have a significant 
impact on the relative prices of fuels with a relatively high renewable content (E85) as 
compared to those with a relatively low renewable content (E10). As the cost of acquiring 
RINs rises, refiners and other obligated parties are expected to respond to this cost by 
increasing the price of the gasoline blendstock they are selling to recover their increasing 
RIN costs. While this does increase the market price for the gasoline blendstock, this 
increase is generally offset by the lower net price paid for the ethanol with which the 
gasoline blendstock is blended. 

The same market dynamics are at work in the diesel fuel marketplace. When considering 
the impact of RIN prices on cost of fuel to the retailer, we begin with the purchase of 
biodiesel by the fuel blender from the renewable fuel producer. The fuel blender receives 
one gallon of biodiesel and 1.5 D4 RINs from a biodiesel producer for $4.00. Each gallon of 
biodiesel generates 1.5 RINs due to the higher energy content of biodiesel relative to 
ethanol. After being separated from the gallon of biodiesel, the RINs are sold to an 
obligated party for $0.50 each (the blender receives the total RIN value associated with a 
gallon of biodiesel; $0.75 in the low RIN price scenario). The net purchase price for the 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005569-00018 









biodiesel without the R1N is therefore $3.25. For the purposes of this example we are not 
considering the impact of any blenders tax credit on the cost of biodiesel blends to retail 
stations. To cover the anticipated cost of their R1N obligation, the refiner charges the fuel 
blender $3.26 per gallon of diesel blendstock ($3.25 for the cost of the diesel blendstock 
and $0.01 to cover the cost of the RIN obligations). In this scenario, the fuel blender has 
effectively paid $3.25 per gallon of biodiesel ($4.00 per gallon with attached RIN - $0.75 
cost recovered in the sale of the RINs) and $3.26 per gallon of diesel blendstock ($3.25 for 
the blendstock + $0.01 RIN recovery cost). The resulting blended fuel costs are an identical 
$3.26 per gallon for B0, B5 and B2.5 (the average blend rate if every gallon of diesel fuel 
sold contained biodiesel). The prices and flows of the various commodities are shown in 
Figure 11 below. 


Figure 11 

Impact of Low RIN Prices on the Cost of Diesel to Retailers 


Biodiesel 


Net :iiodiese I =: $3 MS 
($4.00 fuel cost -$0,75 
|lI ;: yiIuha.5*M iINt 


Separated D4 RIN 

-'iH.5:S:eacht 

ii.llfBri.5l:8lNs: 



For the high RIN price scenario, the cost of the biodiesel with attached RINs to the fuel 
blender is the same $4.00 per gallon. The net purchase price for the biodiesel without the 
RINs is now reduced to $2.90 per gallon ($4.00 per gallon of biodiesel - 1.5 RINs * $0.73 
per RIN). In response to the higher RIN prices, the refiner must charge an additional $0.06 
for each gallon of diesel blendstock sold, resulting in a per gallon price of $3.31 per gallon 
for diesel blendstock. In this high RIN price scenario, the fuel blender has effectively paid 
$2.90 per gallon of biodiesel ($4.00 per gallon with attached RIN - $1.10 cost recovered in 
the sale of the RINs) and $3.31 per gallon of diesel blendstock ($3.25 for the blendstock + 
$0.06 RIN recovery cost). The resulting blended fuel costs are $3.31 per gallon for B0, 
$3.30 per gallon of B2.5, and $3.29 per gallon of B5. The prices and flows of the various 
commodities are shown in Figure 12 below. 


19 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005569-00019 








Figure 12 

Impact of High RIN Prices on the Cost of Diesel to Retailers 


Biodiesel 


Net Biodiesel = $2.90 

($4.00 fuel cost - $ 1 . 

RIN value; 1,5*D4 RIN) 


Separated 04 RIN 

=:$£|.f3::eachj: 

Ii.vl0'fer : l.S:llNs: 



When comparing the impact of high versus low RIN prices on the cost of gasoline and diesel 
fuel blends to retailers we note two key differences. The first is that the price of gasoline 
and ethanol fuel blends are much more sensitive to high RIN prices than the price of diesel 
and biodiesel fuel blends (see Table 2 below). This is due to the fact that the renewable 
content of gasoline is generally much higher than for diesel fuel (almost all gasoline sold in 
the United States contains 10% ethanol, with limited availability of blends containing up to 
85% ethanol; biodiesel is generally sold at blends containing 5% biodiesel or less, with few 
blends offered that contain more than 20% biodiesel). 

Table 2 


Impact of High RIN Prices on Retail Fuel Prices 



No RIN Price 
(No RFS) 

Low RIN Prices 

High RIN Prices 

E0 

$2.75 

$2.76 

$2.81 

E10 

$2.70 

$2.70 

$2.69 

E85 

$2.38 

$2.35 

$1.95 

B0 

$3.25 

$3.26 

$3.31 

B2.5 

$3.27 

$3.26 

$3.30 

B5 

$3.29 

$3.26 

$3.29 


The second difference that can be observed is that increasing D6 RIN prices are expected to 
cause a slight decrease in gasoline prices and an increase in diesel prices. In the example 
above, which is designed to be reflective of a perfectly competitive market, any cost 
decreases that result from lower prices of gasoline-ethanol blends are offset by cost 
increases resulting from higher diesel fuel prices. The per gallon pricing changes for diesel 


20 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005569-00020 








fuel are high relative to the pricing changes in E10 and low relative to the pricing changes 
in E85 primarily due to the relative renewable fuel content of these three fuel blends. 

While not shown in the examples above, increasing D4 RIN price while holding the D6 RIN 
price constant would be expected to result in a slight increase in blended gasoline prices 
and a decrease in diesel prices. This is a result of the structure of the RFS program. Both 
gasoline and diesel blendstocks are subject to the same renewable volume obligations, and 
therefore the same costs associated with acquiring the necessary RINs. As shown in Table 
1, this cost is $0.01 per gallon under the low D6 RIN price scenario and $0.06 per gallon 
under the high D6 RIN price scenario. In the scenarios presented above, the high D6 RIN 
prices can be used to reduce the net purchase price of fuels that generate D6 RINs, which in 
the majority of cases is corn ethanol. Gasoline-ethanol blends, such as E10 and E85, benefit 
from the lower net ethanol costs enabled by the higher D6 RIN prices, while diesel and 
biodiesel blends do not benefit as ethanol cannot be added to these fuels. The reverse 
scenario would also be true. If D4 RIN prices increased while D6 RIN prices were relatively 
unchanged the RIN cost for producing petroleum-based gasoline and diesel blendstocks 
would increase by the same amount. This would be expected to decrease the price of 
biodiesel blends fas the D4 RIN price reduced the net price of biodiesel) and cause slight 
increases in the price of gasoline-ethanol blends (which cannot be blended with biodiesel 
and therefore experience only a RIN cost). The magnitude of this impact, however, would 
likely be smaller as the D4 RVO is significantly lower than the D6 RVO. 

Finally, we note that the price for unblended gasoline and diesel fuel increases in both the 
high and low RIN price scenarios as compared to a scenario where there are no RIN prices 
(no RFS). For E10, the most common fuel type sold for use in gasoline vehicles, this cost 
increase is offset by the effective cost reduction in the price of ethanol, resulting in little or 
no net change to the price of E10. For diesel-biodiesel fuel blends, however, this is not the 
case. The lowest price diesel fuel across the three scenarios is for unblended diesel in the 
no RIN price case. While it is true that in low and high RIN cases biodiesel blends are the 
same price as, or cheaper than unblended diesel fuel all of these products are more 
expensive than unblended diesel in the scenario where there is no RIN price. 

Observing RIN Price Impacts in the Marketplace 

After considering these simplified examples of how increasing RIN prices might impact the 
price of blended fuel to retailers, EPA examined available price information to determine if 
the expected price impacts (higher costs for petroleum blendstocks and lower net costs for 
renewable fuels) could be observed in the data. Due to the many independent factors that 
impact the cost of transportation fuels, this is not a straight-forward exercise. For example, 
it is not enough simply to observe the retail price of transportation fuel as the RIN prices 
fluctuate. If changes in RIN prices corresponded with changes in the price of crude oil (the 
primary cost of producing gasoline blendstocks), simply observing the relationship 
between RIN prices and retail fuel prices may give the false impression that increasing RIN 
prices have a direct impact on the retail pricing of blended fuels. Conversely, decreasing 
crude oil prices might mask the impact that changing RIN prices have on the price of 
gasoline blendstocks at the wholesale level or the retail price of blended fuels. 


21 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005569-00021 



If the market is reacting to changes in RIN prices in the way that the scenarios presented in 
the previous section suggest, there are two places we expect we would be able to observe 
the impacts of the changing RIN prices in the market The first is in the wholesale pricing of 
similar types of fuel with and without a RIN obligation. The scenarios presented above 
suggest that if RIN prices increase, obligated parties will respond by increasing the price 
they charge for petroleum based fuels to recover the cost of purchasing RINs to satisfy the 
RVO associated with the sale of these fuels. We would not, however, expect to see an 
increase in the price of similar fuels that are not subject to a RIN obligation. If we observed 
a sustained price delta between similar types of fuels with and without a RIN obligation, 
and if this price delta was approximately equal to the RIN cost associated with producing a 
gallon of petroleum based transportation fuel, it would provide support for our 
understanding that obligated parties are able to increase the cost of their petroleum 
blendstocks in order to recover the cost of their RIN obligations. 

In the current market there exist several pairs of similar types of fuels wherein one of the 
pair carries a RIN obligation while the other does not. This allows us to examine the impact 
of RIN prices on the wholesale price of petroleum fuels. One such pair of fuels consists of 
gasoline produced for the domestic market (which is subject to an RVO) and gasoline sold 
for export to the European market (which carries no RIN obligation). Two other pairs are 
diesel based: diesel fuel is very similar to jet fuel and heating oil sold in the United States, 
but diesel fuel produced or imported into the U.S. has a RIN obligation while heating oil and 
jet fuel do not. EPA examined available pricing data for these three pairs of fuels (gasoline 
sold in the domestic v. foreign markets, diesel v. jet fuel, and diesel v. heating oil). Figure 
13 shows the future quotes for RBOB Gasoline vs. Euro-bob Oxy for the December futures 27 
(the price difference between gasoline grades sold for the United States and European 
markets) and the RIN obligation cost for gasoline produced or imported into the United 
States. Figures 14 and 15 show the price differentials between diesel and heating oil and 
diesel and jet fuel and the RIN obligation costs associated with diesel fuel. The correlation 
between the price differences of these similar fuels and the RIN obligation costs suggests 
that obligated parties were generally able to increase the price they charge for the RIN 
obligated petroleum products they sell for use as transportation fuel in the US to help 
recover their compliance costs under the RFS program. 28 


11 Futures prices are for December of the current year, i.e. December 2012 throughout 2012, December 2013 
throughout 2013, and December 2014 throughout 2014 

28 Or alternatively, that the market price adjusted to reflect the RIN cost just as it adjusts to reflect changes in 
crude oil prices and other costs 


22 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005569-00022 



Figure 13 

RBOB Gasoline vs. Euro-bob Oxy Futures Quotes (December Futures) 

.. . ; .. ; . . — ' 


Wit w. 7? 


$0,050 


$ 0,000 


$0,050 


$0,100 



r\| 



fNl 

. -frti':; 



•:jp£SS.; 

;#■ 

it: 


ri i. 

fi 

CSt- 


■iTi 

ri-. 


•ri 

ri 


■ CS... 


. CS- ■.. 


Si-- 

Si'--. 


©f 


: f**4 : 

.;<N . 

1%}.. 

v'rili. 

•rsi 

ri 



. fSl';- 







"to- 

igt- 

**< 

■ .■***■ 

ijQ 

•• '• 

■tft. 

. '•TWWr 

ij*)& : 

• sD 

■me* 

MSS'- 

Kd 








"•is*- 


itti, 



rt: 

: f^ 

r~i 

■■■ri 

it 

fit.. 

■Si;.;; 

tri 

’'t 


RBOB minus 
Euro-BOB : fjxy 
Price 

Ritioiy 

(Estimated) 


RJNl»st|OPIS 

Data) 


RIN Prices from OPISEthanol and Biodiesel Information Services 
RBOB Gasoline vs. Euro-bob Oxy Futurer prices from CME Group 


Figure 14 

ULSD Price Minus Heating Oil Price (New York Harbor) and Per Gallon RIN Cost 


$0,40 
$0.35 
$0 30 
$0,25 

$0,15 

$ 0,10 

$0.05 

$ 0.00 




•>AvU 


fSl 

<N 

fN-') 

-fsj' 

■,ff| 

,'f0 

M:. 


rf 

rf 

tH 

ri 

ri 


frt 

ri 

ri'... 

: '(ri.T 

ri 

ri 

CD 1 

C5 


-r>. 

• *«!#*#•• • 



CS- 


;© 

i C3 E 

rs| 

fNj 



. ; t*i 

■fSI 

rsi 

■;p4 


-N 


ii* 






/•Siiv 


■**< 

rf) 

.<**: 

m- 

:4Nt" 



C0-. 


• <ii 








■-^Wv 

■ • ■ 



ri 


t*** 

: ■ 

ri 

:«!t 


•=:©;. 

-ri 





•'•"tpi'" 




• ri 





Minus Healing 

ilffMst 

(Estimated) 

m 


23 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005569-00023 






































Figure 15 

ULSD Price Minus Jet Fuel Price (Gulf Coast) and Per Gallon R1N Cost 



Diesel Price 
Minus Jet Fuel 
Price (GC) 

MRCwst 

.'.(Estirnated): 

RIM Cost 
(ORIS) 


The second area EPA examined to corroborate the results of our example scenarios was the 
pricing of ethanol, unblended gasoline, and blended fuels (such as E10 or E85) at the 
wholesale level. Examining this data should indicate whether or not the value of the RIN, 
which can be separated by the fuel blender when the ethanol is blended to produce a 
transportation fuel, is reflected in the wholesale price of the blended fuels. If the wholesale 
price for blended fuels, such as E10 and E85, is equal to or slightly greater than the volume 
weighted average price of neat ethanol (E100) and clear gasoline (EO) it would indicate 
that the RIN value is not reflected in the wholesale price of the blended fuels. 29 In this 
scenario, the fuel blender would retain any value associated with the separation and sale of 
the RIN. If, however, the price for the blended fuels was lower than the volume weighted 
average of neat ethanol and clear gasoline, it would indicate that the RIN value was at least 
partially reflected in the price of the blended fuels at the wholesale level. 

The fuel blender can only profitably sell a blended fuel for less than the component costs of 
that fuel if they are realizing value elsewhere. Fuel blenders are able to separate and sell a 
RIN every time they blend a gallon of renewable fuel, and the RIN value can be used to 
discount the price of the blended fuel and offer it at a competitive price. Alternatively, the 
fuel blenders may attempt to retain some or all of the RIN value, especially in less 
competitive markets. As in the case where we examined the price delta between similar 
fuels with and without RIN obligations, if the difference between the blended fuel price and 
the volume weighted average price of neat ethanol and clear gasoline was approximately 


29 This is true when RIN prices are relatively high. When D6 RIN prices are only a few cents any blended fuel 
discount due to the sale of the RIN may be masked by a mark-up of the fuel price at the fuel blender 


24 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005569-00024 





equal to the RIN value for each of these fuels, this would provide support for the argument 
that the RIN value is the basis for this difference. 

For this analysis we used terminal pricing information from Des Moines, Iowa. We chose to 
use Des Moines for two reasons. First, unlike many terminals in other states, clear gasoline 
(EO) is readily available in Iowa at the wholesale level. Knowing the price of clear gasoline 
allows us to see RIN price impacts on petroleum blendstocks before they are blended with 
ethanol. Second, Iowa contains a relatively high number of ethanol plants that currently 
market E85 fuel blends, making it more likely to represent a competitive marketplace for 
E85. This increase in the competition in the E85 wholesale market increases the likelihood 
that the RIN value will be reflected in the price of E85 at the wholesale level (see Figure 6, 
where E85 sales in Iowa increased when RIN prices were high). In other markets, where 
blenders of E85 face less competition, they may be able to retain more of the RIN value for 
these higher level ethanol blends rather than reflecting them in the wholesale pricing of 
these blends. 30 Figure 16 shows the pricing of neat ethanol (E100), clear gasoline (EO), and 
E10 at the Des Moines terminal, as well as the average price for E85 available at the 
terminal and direct from ethanol production facilities. 33 Figure 17 compares the difference 
between the reported price of E10 and the calculated price using a volume weighted 
average of the component fuels (E100 and EO) 32 to the RIN value associated with E10. 33 
Figure 18 compares the difference between the reported price of E85 and the calculated 
prices using a volume weighted average of the component fuels (E100 and EO) 34 to the RIN 
value associated with E85. 35 


30 Over time, however, we would expect markets that are currently relatively uncompetitive to see increased 
competition and a decreasing opportunity to withhold RIN value from fuel costomers 

31 Prices for EO, E10, and E100 are Des Moines rack average prices, provided to EPA by Iowa RFA. Price for 
E85 is the average of all prices listed on the Iowa RFA Wholesale E85 Price Listing website 
(http://www.iowarfa.org/E85PastPriceProgram.php) 

32 Component E10 price = 0.9 * EO price + 0.1 * E100 price 

33 E10 RIN value = 0.1 * D6 RIN price (RIN price information from OPIS Ethanol and Biodiesel Information 
Service 

34 Component E85 price = [1 - Ethanol Content] * EO price + [Ethanol Content] * E100 price; Ethanol content 
is calculated based on the weekly average of all E85 offerings reported by Iowa RFA 

35 E85 RIN value = [Ethanol content of E85] * D6 RIN price (Ethanol content is calculated based on the weekly 
average of all E85 offerings reported by Iowa RFA ; RIN price information from OPIS Ethanol and Biodiesel 
Information Service 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005569-00025 



Figure 16 

Clear Gasoline (EO), Neat Ethanol (E100), E10, and E85 Pricing at Des Moines 



$ 3.60 
$ 3,40 
$3 10 
$ 3,00 
$ 2.80 
$ 2.60 
$2,48 
$ 2,20 
$ 2.00 
$ 1.80 



ffi:- 

■Vffl •• 



•: : 

■tri 

■r v -i . 

>iHh: 

t-t 


i ri1ITLfl i 


o. 


■■© 

<b- 


f\| 

.fMh' 


: a4 

rs| 

■■-.fSr 

: 







FN*--- 


■ften 




■••'*****; • 

: 

.*** •• 


:>n 

'■ ■ 




r-f 









EO Price 
E10 Price 
E100 Price 
ESS Price 


Fuel Prices from Iowa RFA (E85 Prices only available after August 8, 2014) 


Figure 17 

E10 Discount to Component Fuels vs. E10 RIN Value 


fNl 

,¥*HI 



O 

m, 

pi; 


rsi 




...o 

;fSI 

/•fs*' 

v-O 


f*4. 

O- 

W: 


¥**t 

••'(PSI'- 

;IS: 

'^Ss. ■ 


E10 Discount 
to Component 
Fuels 

■RIN Value per 
Gallon E10 


RIN values based on OP1S Ethanol and Biodiesel Information Service 


26 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005569-00026 







































Figure 18 

E85 Discount to Component Fuels vs. E85 RIN Value; August 2013 - May 2014 



In reviewing the available data, it appears that, as predicted by scenarios in the previous 
section, the blended fuel prices at the wholesale level generally reflect the changing RIN 
prices. To state this another way, when determining the price at which to offer blended 
fuels, the data suggests the fuel blenders are taking into account the value received in the 
sale of the RIN. This further supports EPA’s argument that, if all else remains equal, rising 
RIN prices may impact the relative pricing of fuel blends containing differing amounts of 
renewable fuel, but should not result in overall increases to blended fuel prices. We expect 
that these dynamics will hold when there are generally competitive markets for blended 
fuels at the wholesale and retail level. This is currently the case for much of the United 
States for E10 blends, however in most of the United States there is limited competition for 
E85 at both the wholesale and retail level. In their efforts to maximize profit and pay off 
their infrastructure investment, E85 wholesalers and retailers who face less competition 
may choose to withhold some or all or the RIN value if they believe that any increased sales 
volumes that result from lower priced E85 will be insufficient to overcome the lower per 
gallon profit margin. These high per-gallon profit margins may over time result in new 
parties entering the E85 wholesale or retail marketplace, and ultimately greater 
competition and lower E85 fuel prices for customers. 36 

While EPA has examined the available data in the marketplace to answer these two 
questions (Are obligated parties increasing the price of their RIN obligated fuels to recover 
RIN costs? And are fuel wholesalers reflecting the price of the RIN in their blended fuels?) 
we have not conducted a comprehensive analysis to address the question of whether or not 
a causal relationship between RIN prices and retail gasoline prices could be observed. EPA 
is aware, however, of others who have directly explored this issue, including an analysis 


27 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005569-00027 













released by the Renewable Fuels Association conducted by Informa Economics 37 and Scott 
Irwin and Darrel Good of FarmDoc Daily, 38 and concluded that R1N prices in 2013 did not 
cause higher gasoline retail prices. 


RIN Price Impacts on Merchant and Integrated Refiners 

After RIN prices surged in 2013, several parties argued that high RIN prices put merchant 
refiners (refiners that do not blend the petroleum blendstocks they produced with 
renewable fuels) at a competitive disadvantage relative to integrated refiners (refiners who 
do own fuel blending operations). EPA maintains that this conclusion is based on a flawed 
analysis of the RIN and transportation fuel markets. Specifically, this argument rests on the 
assumption that parties who blended renewable fuels with petroleum-based fuels to 
produce transportation fuel were able to separate RINs from renewable fuel and obtain 
them at a lower cost, while merchant refiners were forced to buy RINs at a higher market 
price. Those who raised this concern argued that while this dynamic existed even when 
RIN prices were low, the high RIN prices in 2013, specifically the high D6 RIN prices, put 
them at a significant competitive disadvantage. 

The misunderstanding at the heart of this flawed conclusion concerns the manner in which 
merchant refiners acquire RINs, which may differ from the method generally used by 
integrated refiners. Because merchant refiners do not own fuel blending infrastructure, 
they generally purchase RINs from fuel blenders who do not have RIN obligations, or other 
parties who have RINs in excess of their obligations. For these merchant refiners there is a 
direct and obvious cost of purchasing RINs to satisfy their obligations. Integrated refiners 
generally obtain RINs by purchasing renewable fuels with attached RINs. As a result, 
integrated refiners are not paying a separate price for the RINs they acquire, but rather 
simultaneously purchasing both the renewable fuel and the associated RINs. At the same 
time, the increased value merchant refiners receive for their petroleum fuel is hidden in the 
market pricing of the fuels. Several merchant refiners have claimed that they cannot 
increase the price of their petroleum products, as the price they receive is determined by 
market listings such as NYMEX. However, even if true, the higher NYMEX price for gasoline 
sold in the United States relative to the price of gasoline in foreign markets shown in Figure 
13 suggests that the NYMEX prices reflect the RIN cost incurred by refiners who sell 
petroleum products into the U.S. market While these merchant refiners may simply be 
receiving prices for their products based on market listings, the data we have reviewed 


37 “Analysis of Whether Higher Prices of Renewable Fuel Standard RINs Affected Gasoline Prices in 2013.” 
Informa Economics. January 2014. In examining the available information, Informa Economics concluded 
that RIN prices did not have a causal relationship with gasoline prices. Other factors, notably the refiner 
crude oil composite acquisition cost, were found to have a causal relationship with gasoline prices in 2013. 
While this paper does not explore the mechanics of the RIN and transportation fuels market, and therefore 
cannot be used to verily EPA's understanding of the RIN market dynamics, it nevertheless supports our 
conclusion that high RIN prices did not cause higher gasoline prices in 2013. 

38 Irain, Scott, and Darrel Good. “High Gasoline and Ethanol RIN Prices; Is There a Connection?” FarmDoc 
Daily. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, 27 Mar. 
2013. Web. 10 Sept. 2014. 


28 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005569-00028 



suggests that the market has adjusted to increased D6 RIN prices and they are nevertheless 
receiving a higher price for their products that generally reflects their RIN costs. If this is 
the case, exempting merchant refiners (or any other obligated party) from their RIN 
obligation while maintaining RIN obligations for other obligated parties would allow the 
exempted parties to benefit from higher petroleum prices that reflect RIN costs while 
incurring no RIN costs themselves. This would allow the exempted parties to benefit from 
increased profit margins relative to other obligated parties as a direct result of the RFS 
program. 

The data EPA has analyzed also indicates that parties that blended renewable fuels were 
not able to retain the full RIN value. Rather, the price received for a RIN was effectively 
used to subsidize the price of the renewable from which it was separated, and the price of 
blended fuels generally reflected this lower renewable fuel price. As discussed in the 
preceding section and shown in Figures 17 and 18 above, the data EPA has reviewed for 
Iowa shows that the price of blended fuels at the wholesale level in 2013 was generally less 
than the weighted average prices of the component fuels. This difference was related to the 
RIN value associated with the renewable fuel content in these blended fuels. This suggests 
that fuel blenders who purchased renewable fuels with attached RINs, whether 
independent or owned and operated by integrated refiners, were selling the renewable 
fuels for significantly less than the purchase price after the renewable fuels had been 
blended to produce transportation fuel and the RINs had been separated. Whether the 
integrated refiners attribute the cost associated with selling the renewable fuels for less 
than the price they paid to purchase these fuels to their renewable fuel acquisition 
operations, blending operations, or refining operations, they are subject to a cost for 
acquiring RINs just like the merchant refiners as long as they are selling renewable fuels at 
a price lower than the purchase price. If the integrated refiners were to attempt to recover 
the full purchase price of the renewable fuels in the price of the blended fuel they would 
likely not be competitive with the independent fuel blenders as the available data suggests 
blended fuel prices generally reflect discounted renewable fuel prices (net the RIN value). 

We further believe that the obligated parties were generally able to recover this increase in 
the cost of meeting their RIN obligations in the price they received for their petroleum- 
based products in 2013. We do not argue the fact that higher RIN prices lead to greater RIN 
acquisition costs for some obligated parties. We do believe, however, that these higher 
costs have a similar impact on all obligated parties. This includes not only merchant and 
integrated refiners, but also fuel importers who may import only a single product, such as 
gasoline or diesel fuel, as the primary mechanism for recovering the RIN cost is through the 
sales price of the petroleum based blendstocks. There are a number of factors that may 
impact an individual obligated party's RIN costs, including their RIN purchasing strategy 
(contract v. spot purchases, separated RINs v. RINs attached to renewable fuels), 
investments in renewable fuel production and blending infrastructure, geographic location, 
and many others unique to each obligated party's business. While changing RIN prices may 
result in profit or costs for one obligated party relative to another, these impacts are largely 
due to individual business decisions rather than the systematic design of the RFS program. 
In this way the increasing RIN prices are similar to an increase in the price of crude oil. A 
rise in the price of crude oil has a significant impact on a refiners cost to produce gasoline 


29 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005569-00029 



blendstocks, but it will likely not impact their competitiveness, as all refiners are similarly 
impacted. The impacts on individual refiners may have slight variations due to crude oil 
purchase contracts or crude supply options, but these differences are indicative of market 
positions taken by individual refineries rather than a systematic competitive 
disadvantage. 39 

In the preceding section we examined available data on the price obligated parties received 
for similar fuel types with and without RIN obligations. In demonstrating that there was a 
difference in the prices for these fuels, this data, shown in Figures 13 and 16, suggests that 
obligated parties are generally able to recover the cost of meeting their RIN obligations in 
the price of their petroleum blendstocks. If this were not the case, we would expect that 
merchant refiners would have an incentive to export the gasoline and diesel fuel they 
produce or to increase production of heating oil or jet fuel, as these fuels do not incur a RIN 
obligation. If a significant volume of fuel was exported to foreign markets this would create 
a shortage of supply in the U.S., and prices in the U.S. would rise. These higher domestic 
prices would provide a price signal to increase domestic production, increase fuel imports, 
or reduce exports to meet the demand, despite this fuel being subject to an RVO. 

Finally, claims that high RIN prices put merchant refiners at a competitive disadvantage 
relative to integrated refiners ignore the compliance flexibility built into the RIN system. 
Obligated parties, including independent refiners, may acquire RINs by purchasing 
renewable fuel with attached RINs and retaining the RINs after selling or blending the 
renewable fuel, by purchasing separated RINs on the RIN spot market; or through contract 
arrangements. A merchant refiner's status does not mandate that the refiner purchase only 
separated RINs. Rather, all obligated parties can choose how and when to acquire RINs to 
comply with the RFS program. To the extent that merchant refiners choose—for economic 
or other reasons—to limit themselves to purchasing RINs on the market, that choice is 
their own, and not one required by EPA's rule. If merchant refiners believe that owning 
and operating blending operations, or purchasing renewable fuels, separating and retiring 
the RINs, and reselling the renewable fuel without RINs would present a significant 
financial or strategic advantage, they may, and generally would, enter the marketplace in 
this capacity. 


Conclusion 

In this document we have examined the RIN, renewable fuels, and transportation fuels 
marketplace. We have explored the question of the cause of elevated D6 RIN prices 
observed in 2013 and shown that the E10 blendwall was a significant factor in these rising 
RIN prices. Due to the complexity of the RIN market, we cannot precisely predict the future 


39 There are significant similarities between the RIN markets and how refiners make their crude oil 
purchasing decisions. Integrated refiners may process their own crude or procure it from the open market, 
while independent refiners purchase all of their crude oil. Refiners, both integrated and independent, are 
differently situated to process or option different crudes. They have differing business strategies for making 
these decisions that may impact their relative profitability. 


30 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005569-00030 



price of D6 RINs. We would not, however, expect the D6 RIN price to return to the prices 
experienced from 2010 to 2012 unless the cost of production of ethanol or other renewable 
fuels fell sufficiently below the cost of gasoline on an energy-equivalent basis. 

We also examined data from 2013 which suggested that rising RIN prices did not result in 
an increase in retail transportation fuel prices in 2013 (considering both gasoline and 
diesel together), due to the lower net cost of renewable fuels enabled by the high RIN 
prices. While higher RIN prices increase the cost of RFS compliance for obligated parties 
purchasing separated RINs, these obligated parties generally recover these costs in the 
price of their petroleum blendstocks. As a result, a slight decrease in the price of ethanol- 
gasoline blends, which contain a relatively large amount of renewable fuels, is expected to 
be offset by an increase in the price of diesel fuel, which generally contains lower levels of 
renewable fuel. This does not necessarily mean that there is no cost to increasing the 
volume of renewable fuels required to be blended into the transportation fuel pool. If 
renewable fuels cost more on an energy-equivalent basis than the petroleum fuels they 
displace, as they did in 2013, there is a cost to using these renewable fuels. The higher the 
required volume of these fuels, the higher this cost will be. As a result, blending increasing 
volumes of renewable fuels likely increased the total cost of transportation fuel in the 
United States in 2013, relative to a scenario where there was no mandate for renewable 
fuels. 

Finally we examined how merchant refiners and integrated refiners were impacted by high 
RIN prices. The available data suggests that while there may be some variation in how high 
RIN prices impact individual obligated parties due to differing business decisions, RIN 
acquisition strategies, and many other factors, the structure of the RFS program does not 
cause a systematic competitive advantage for one type of refiner or the other. The RIN, 
renewable fuel, and transportation fuel market is complex, and there are limitations to the 
available data. EPA will continue to monitor market prices and impacts over time in an 
attempt to better understand the dynamics and watch for signs of market disruption. 

Based on available data, however, the RIN market seems to be functioning generally as 
expected; providing an incentive for the continued growth of renewable fuels in the 
transportation fuel market without causing overall increases to the retail price of 
transportation fuel. 


31 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005569-00031 



To: Dravis, Samantha[dravis.samantha@epa.gov]; Greaves, Holly[greaves.holly@epa.gov] 

Cc: brittanybolen.epa@gmail.com[brittanybolen. epa@gmail.com] 

From: Jackson, Ryan 

Sent: Wed 3/22/2017 8:41:55 PM 

Subject: RE: OP budget 


Samantha, some things are worth conversations. 


From: Dravis, Samantha 

Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 4:04 PM 

To: Greaves, Holly <greaves.holly@epa.gov>; Jackson, Ryan <jackson.ryan@epa.gov> 
Cc: brittanybolen.epa@gmail.com 
Subject: OP budget 


■i 


Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process 


L 


Samantha 


Samantha Dravis 

Senior Counsel / Associate Adminstrator for Policy 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005570-00001 





17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005570-00002 



From: Kime, Robin 

Location: 3500 WJCN 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Meeting with Steptoe and the Association of American Railroads on the Point of Obligation 

Start Date/Time: Wed 6/14/2017 6:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Wed 6/14/2017 6:30:00 PM 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your right 
as you exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 20 minutes prior to the meeting 
with photo IDs to clear Security. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all other 
matters call Robin Kime (202)564-6587. 


Request: On behalf of our client, the Association of American Railroads (AAR ), I respectfully 
request an opportunity to meet with you to discuss the point of obligation under the Renewable 
Fuels Standard. AAR represents the major freight railroads, which are significant end-users of 
diesel fuel, and has a unique perspective to offer on this issue. 


Attendees are flying in for this meeting. 


Ian Jefferies - AAR SVP Govt Relations 


Kathy Kirmayer - AAR SVP - Law 


Garrick Francis - CSX 


Bruno Maestri - NS 


Mike Smythers - BNSF 


Printz Bolin - UP 


Eva Rigamonti, Steptoe & Johnson LLP 


Eva Rigamonti 

Associate 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005571-00001 

















































eriqamonti@steptoe.com 


Steptoe 


+1 202 429 6457 directSteptoe & Johnson LLP 
+1 202 429 3902 fax 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20036 

www.steptoe.com 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005571-00002 



From: Kime, Robin 

Location: 3500 WJCN 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Meeting with Cozen O’Connor & Amazon 

Start Date/Time: Wed 7/12/2017 8:30:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Wed 7/12/2017 9:00:00 PM 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your right 
as you exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 10 minutes prior to the meeting 
with photo IDs to clear Security. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all other 
matters call Robin Kime (202)564-6587. 


Attendees: Andrea Fava, Brian Huseman of Amazon, Lori Kalani and Jerry Kilgore of Cozen. 


Request: I am writing to request a meeting for our client, Amazon. Carletta Ootton, who 
oversees Amazon’s Environmental and Sustainability teams and her colleague, Andrea Fava, 
Public Policy Director, would like to meet with Ms. Dravis and the EPA policy team to discuss 
some of their initiatives, to learn more about the EPA’s priorities and where Amazon might have 
opportunities to collaborate on issues. 


Contact: 



Emily Lundahl 

Policy Coordinator j Cozen O'Connor 

1200 19th Street, NW | Washington, DC 20036 
P: 202-471-3424 F: 202-912-4812 


Email | Map | cozen.com 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005572-00001 




From: Inge, Carolyn 

Location: DCRoomARN3500/OPEI 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Meeting with SEMA 

Start Date/Time: Wed 3/29/2017 3:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Wed 3/29/2017 3:45:00 PM 


Hi 

Would you set this meeting up from Samantha’s calendar? Thank you. 


Topic: Meeting with SEMA 
Date: March 29 
Time: 11:00- 11:30 

Location: 3500 WJC (8 attendees are expected) 

Required: Jonathan E. Missner < JMissner@steinmitcfaell.com > 

Cc: Kime, Robin < Kime.Robin@epa.gov >: Germann, Sandy Germann.Sandv@epa.gov : Shaw, 
Nena < S fa aw. Nen a@ ep a. gov > 


Notes: 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your right as you 
exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 20 minutes prior to the meeting with photo 
IDs to clear Security. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all other 
matters call Robin Kime (202)564-6587. 


Contact: 

Jonathan E. Missner I Managing Partner 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005573-00001 



Stein Mitchell Cipollone Beato & Missner LLP 


110 0 Connecticut Ave, NW Suite 1100 
Washington. DC 20036 
D 202.661.0956 

M 301-503-3322 

imissner@steinmitchell.com 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005573-00002 



From: Kime, Robin 

Location: American Chemistry Council - 700 2nd Street NE (10th Floor) 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: American Chemistry Council's Environmental Management Committee Spring Meeting 
Start Date/Time: Tue 5/23/2017 4:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Tue 5/23/2017 5:00:00 PM 


Contact: 

Anna Burhop\ American Chemistry Council 

Director, Environment 

Regulatory and Technical Affairs 

700 2 nd Street NE | Washington, DC | 20002 

(202) 249-6440 

anna burhop@americanchemistrv.com 
www.americanchemistrv.com 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005574-00001 



From: Inge, Carolyn 

Location: 3513 A 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Brief Meeting Today 3/7 

Start Date/Time: Tue 3/7/2017 9:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Tue 3/7/2017 9:15:00 PM 


Does Ms. Dravis have a 10 minute window today or tomorrow morning? Pete can swing 
by EPA offices anytime that is convenient on your end. 


Thanks so much for working with us. 

From: Regan Robertson rmailto: rrobertson@,depausa.org] 

Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 1:27 PM 

To: Dravis, Samantha < dravis.samantha@epa.gov > 

Cc: Pete Regan < pregan@,depausa. org > 

Subject: Re: Brief Meeting Today 3/7 or Tomorrow AM 3/8 


Good afternoon, Ms. Dravis. 

I just spoke with Mona (sp?) in your office and wanted to follow up to see if you had 10 
(or less) minutes to meet with Pete today or tmrw morning regarding the attached 
memo. 


Pete flies out tomorrow (Wed 3/8) afternoon and is available anytime prior to then that 
may work for you 

Thanks and looking forward to hearing from you! 

Regan 

On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Regan Robertson < rrobertson@depausa.org > wrote: 
Hi Ms. Dravis, 

Regarding message below- please see attached. 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005575-00001 



Please 'reply all' if you are available for 5-10 minutes to meet with Pete tomorrow (Tues) 
3/7. Thanks so much! 


On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 1:47 PM, DEPA < preqan@depausa.org > wrote: 

Hi Samantha, 

Nice to meet you. □ 

Would you happen to have 5-10 mins tomorrow/Tue for me to come to office? 

Thanks so much, 

-Pete 

Mobile 918 - 845-1553 


Copy: Regan Robertson (pis reply all the Memo for Samantha). 
Peter J. Regan 
Executive Director 
DEPA 

Domestic Energy Producers Alliance 
4124 S. Rockford Ave., Suite 201 
Tulsa, OK 74105 

T: 918 - 293-3921 
preqan @depaus a.org 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005575-00002 




www.depausa.org 

On Feb 28, 2017, at 2:17 PM, Hale, Michelle < hale.michelle@epa.gov > wrote: 

Certainly! Samantha Dravis would be a good staffer to talk with regarding your topic of 
concern. I am copying her on this email. Thank you, Pete. 


From: DEPA rmailto:preqan@depausa.org1 

Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 12:47 PM 
To: Hale, Michelle < hale.michelle@epa.gov > 

Subject: Re: DEPA on March 7 or 8 


Will do and thanks, Michelle. 


Is there a chance to have a brief mtg (or brief telephone call) with you or one of your 
deputies to put an issue on the radar screen re EPA? 


I will send a 1 pager before close of business tomorrow re the topic. 


Thanks and will get details re April 3/4. 


Appreciate ya, 
-Pete 


Peter J. Regan 
Executive Director 
DEPA 

Domestic Energy Producers Alliance 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005575-00003 



4124 S. Rockford Ave., Suite 201 
Tulsa, OK 74105 

T: 918 - 293-3921 

preqan@depausa.org 

www.depausa.org 

On Feb 28, 2017, at 9:39 AM, Hale, Michelle < hale.micheHe@epa.gov > wrote: 

Hi, Pete. It is good to hear from you. Next week is complicated for the Administrator’s 
schedule and so unfortunately, we won’t be able to set up a meeting on March 7 or 8. 
Would you mind sending me details on the meetings being held on April 3 and 4? 


Thank you! 

Michelle Hale 

Executive Assistant to the Administrator 
Environmental Protection Agency 
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, 

WJCS, Suite 3000 
Washington, D.C. 20460 
( 202 ) 564-1430 


Confidentiality Warning: This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the 
recipient(s), are confidential, and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby 
notified that any review, retransmission, conversion to hard copy, copying, circulation or other use of all or 
any portion of this message and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended 
recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return email and delete this message and any 
attachments from your system. 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005575-00004 



Regan Robertson 


Domestic Energy Producers Alliance 
4124 S Rockford Ave. Ste 201 
Tulsa, OK 74105 
Telephone: 918-293-3921 
rrobertson@depausa.org 
www.clepaysa.org 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005575-00005 



From: Kime, Robin 

Location: DCRoomARN3500/OPEI 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Follow-Up to API Discussion 
Start Date/Time: Fri 5/19/2017 3:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Fri 5/19/2017 3:30:00 PM 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005576-00001 



From: Inge, Carolyn 

Location: DCRoomARN3530CFTB/DC-Ariel-Rios-AO 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Meeting with Air Liquide 

Start Date/Time: Wed 3/22/2017 7:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Wed 3/22/2017 7:45:00 PM 

Air Liquide Meeting Request Administrator Pruitt.pdf 


Topic: Meeting with Air Liquide 
Date: March 22 
Time: 3:00 - 3:45 

Location: Request 3530 WJCN or 4530 WJCN or 6530 WJC please (15 attendees are expected) 
Required: Dee.Martin@policyres.com : Kreutzer, David < kreutzer.david@epa.gov > 

Cc: Kime, Robin < Kime.Robin@epa.gov >: Germann, Sandy Germann.Sandv@epa.gov : 


Notes: 

Include the attached request in the meeting invitation. 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your right as you 
exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 20 minutes prior to the meeting with photo 
IDs to clear Security. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all other 
matters call Robin Kime (202)564-6587 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005577-00001 



DEE MARTIN 


Partner 


.c oin 

T: +1.202.828.5818 | F: +1.202.857.2146 
BRACEWELL LLP 


2001 M Street NW, Suite 900 | Washington, D.C. | 20036-3310 

policvres.com | profile | download v-card 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005577-00002 



February 22, 2017 


The Honorable E. Scott Pruitt 
Administrator 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 
Washington, D.C. 20460 

Re: Meeting with Air Liquide S.A. Chairman and CEO Benoit Potier and American Air 
Liquide Holdings, Inc. Chairman and CEO Michael J. Graff 

Dear Administrator Pruitt: 

On behalf of Air Liquide and our over 20,000 U.S. employees, I write to congratulate you on your 
confirmation as the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Air Liquide is 
the world’s largest manufacturer and distributor of industrial gases (e.g., hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen). 
We are headquartered in Houston, Texas, and we operate in every state in the U.S. Like you, we have 
long believed in finding the appropriate balance between protecting our natural resources and providing 
the regulatory certainty that allows our private sector to continue to lead the world in innovation. 

To that end, I write to request a meeting with Air Liquide S.A. Chairman and CEO Benoit Potier who 
will be in Washington. D.C. on March 22, 2017 and me; we are available at your convenience. In 
addition to our leadership of Air Liquide: 

• Mr. Potier serves as the Chairman of the European Round Table (ERT). As such, Mr. Potier leads 
50 maior multinational corporations with combined revenues exceeding $2.37 trillion that sustain 
6.8 million jobs, many of whom invest significantly in the U.S. like Air Liquide. In this capacity, 
Mr. Potier works closely with global companies on issues related to the appropriate role of 
environmental regulation and effective ways to stimulate technological innovation. 

• I serve on the Board of Directors and Executive Committee of the American Chemistry Council, as 
well as on the Board of Directors and Executive Committee of the National Association of 
Manufacturers. As you know, both organizations seek to strengthen the U.S. economy and 
increase domestic manufacturing jobs. My leadership role in these organizations enables me to 
hear from a broad array of domestic manufacturers about the environmental regulatory issues they 
face and how we can make these industries competitive again while also protecting our 
environment. 


American Air Liquide Holdings, Inc. - 9811 Katy Freeway, Suite 100; Houston, TX 77024 USA 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005578-00001 



0 ffir liquide 


Mr. Poticr and I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to discuss Air Liquide’s work related to 
technological innovations that can continue to foster energy production and reliability while reducing 
environmental risk. Examples of Air Liquide’s leadership in this area include: 


• Reducing Water Use in Hydraulic Fracturing - Air Liquide has responded to concerns over the use 
of large quantities of water as part of the hydraulic fracturing process by using nitrogen or carbon 
dioxide foam-based fluids. The use of these fl uids in the process has demonstrated water savings 
of nearly 50 percent. 

* Reducing Carbon Emissions from Power Plants — Air Liquide has responded to the need to reduce 
carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants by being at the forefront of the development of 
oxy-combustion technology. This technology uses oxygen—instead of air—for combustion. This 
produces carbon dioxide enriched flue gas that can then be captured for either sequestration or use 
in enhanced oil recovery. 


We look forward to discussing these technologies and more as you continue to contemplate your 
regulatory agenda at EPA. If you have any questions, please contact our Vice President for 


Communications and Public Affairs at N 
time. We look forward to hearing from you. 


chael 


' 7 \ 


diquide.com or 713-624-8023 or me at any 



/# 

' fathers' / ' c/ 

Michael J/Graff 




% » A S -W -w- -d 4 V 'W- 

Air liquide Holdings, Inc. 


J 


2 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005578-00002 




From: Inge, Carolyn 

Location: DCRoomARN3500/OPEI 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Meeting with D. Munoz/Energy Fuels 

Start Date/Time: Thur 5/25/2017 6:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Thur 5/25/2017 6:30:00 PM 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on 
your right as you exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 20 minutes 
prior to the meeting with photo IDs to clear Security. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all 
other matters call Robin Kime (202)564-6587. 


Darrin R. Munoz and Paul Goranson from Energy Fuels will plan to discuss the Part 192 
rulemaking and the abandoned uranium mines cleanup out of Region 9. 


Darrin R. Munoz 
Director 

darrin.munoz@FaeqreBD.com Download vCard 

D: +1 202 312 7468. 


1050 K Street NW I Suite 400 


Washington, DC 20001, USA 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005579-00001 



From: Inge, Carolyn 

Location: 3530 WJCN 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Meeting with API 

Start Date/Time: Tue 3/7/2017 4:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Tue 3/7/2017 4:45:00 PM 


Topic: Meeting with API 
Date: March 7 
Time: 11:00-11:45 

Location: 3500 WJC (10 attendees are expected) 

Required: moffetth@api.org 

Cc: Kime, Robin < Kime.Robin@epa.gov >: Germann, Sandy Germann.Sandv@epa.gov : 


Notes: 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your right as you 
exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 20 minutes prior to the meeting with photo 
IDs to clear Security. 


EPA Contact: Robin Kime (202) 564-6587 or the main OP line (202) 564-4332 


API representatives will discuss issues of mutual interest that are timely for EPA consideration. 


Contact: 

Hilary Moffett 
Director, Federal Relations 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005580-00001 



American Petroleum Institute 


202-682-8040 (desk) 
612-710-8696 (cell) 

M offettl 1 api org 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005580-00002 



From: Kime, Robin 

Location: DCRoomARN3500/OPEI 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: A. J. FeranteA/inyl Institute Executive Committee 
Start Date/Time: Tue 5/16/2017 8:15:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Tue 5/16/2017 8:45:00 PM 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your right 
as you exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 20 minutes prior to the meeting 
with photo IDs to clear Security. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all other 
matters call Robin Kime (202)564-6587. 


Request: On May 16, the Executive Committee for VI would come to you for a brief discussion 
of issues with you. 

Attendees: 

Bob Buesinger, Senior Vice President - Vinyls, Westlake Chemical, Houston, TX 

Grant Evans, Vice President and General Manager-Vinyls, Occidental Chemical Corporation, 
Dallas, TX 

Mary Bachynsky, Director of EHS 

Dick Mason, Corporate Secretary, Shintech Inc., Houston, TX 
Dick Doyle, President and CEO, Vinyl Institute, Washington, DC 

Rich Krock, Vice President Regulatory and Technical Affairs, Vinyl Institute, Washington, DC 

JC Walker, Partner, Keller & Heckman, Washington, DC 

Contact: 

Anthony J. "A.J." Ferate, JD 
(202) 486.7211 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005581-00001 



From: Amar, Freda 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: CERAWEEK SPEAKER Prep Call: Dr. Daniel Yergin and Scott Pruitt's Staff: Today (Thurs, 

March 2) @ 2:00-3:00pEST 

Start Date/Time: Thur 3/2/2017 7:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Thur 3/2/2017 8:00:00 PM 


[Note: Please scroll to the bottom of this notification to find the dial-in 
instructions for today' conference call.] 

Thanks Freda. Here you go. Can you just add me as optional but I won't be joining the call. 

Drayis.samantha#ep 

Konkus.iohn@epa.gov 

From: Amar, Freda [ mailto:Freda.Amar@ihsmarkit.com l 

Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2017 11:25 AM 

To: Dickerson, Aaron < dickerson.aaron@epa.gov > 

Subject: RE: CERAWEEK SPEAKER Prep Call: Dr. Daniel Yergin and Scott Pruitt 

Yes, I will send out an invite that includes conference call dialing instructions, but will need their email 
addresses. 

From: Dickerson, Aaron [ maiItoidickerson.aaron &eoa .oov ] 

Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2017 11:21 AM 
To: Amar, Freda 

Subject: RE: CERAWEEK SPEAKER Prep Call: Dr. Daniel Yergin and Scott Pruitt 

Hi Freda 

Can we schedule a call at 2:00 today? The participants from EPA will be Samantha Dravis and John 
Konkus. Do you have a call-in number as Samantha and John may be calling in from different locations. 
From: Amar, Freda [ mailto:Freda.Amar@ihsmarkit.com l 

Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 4:56 PM 

To: Dickerson, Aaron < dickerson.aaron@epa.gov > 

Cc: Amar, Freda < Freda.Amar@ihsmarkit.com > 

Subject: CERAWEEK SPEAKER Prep Call: Dr. Daniel Yergin and Scott Pruitt 
Importance: High 

Dear Aaron 

I hope this email finds you well - and Congrats! 

We are very excited that Mr. Pruitt has accepted our invitation to join us at CERAWeek! I am the 
executive assistant and scheduler for Dr. Daniel Yergin, the Chairman and Founder of CERAWeek. Dr. 
Yergin reaches out to all the plenary speakers in advance to review their sessions, the program and 
Q&A. Also, it provides time for the speakers and/or their handlers to become familiar with the program 
and it's setup while at the same time answer any queries. Therefore, I am in search of a time amenable 
on your schedule to do a prep conference call tomorrow. 

Could you please check your schedule and let me know what's available? Dr. Yergin has a full day, but 
we can do 2:00-3:00 or 3:00-4:00p, or even between 4:00-5:00p if that works for you. We're literally 
down to the wire before kick-off, and hope we can be introduced over the phone, and prepare him for 
the session ahead. In addition, please provide the names/email addresses for all who will participate on 
the call from your end so they will be included on the email invite. Dr. Yergin only needs about 30 
minutes of Mr. Pruitt's time, or that of his staff, but I am setting aside as much as an hour to 
accommodate if the extra time is needed. 

Accompanying Dr. Yergin from our office will be Elena Pravettoni, Senior Economist; and Libby Tillemann- 
Dick, Research Manager. 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005582-00001 




Once a time is confirmed, I will send out the invite with call-in details. 
I look forward to hearing from you soon. 

Best regards, 

Freda Amar 



IHS Markit 

Freda A mar 

Senior Executive Assistant to Daniei Yergin | Vice Chairman 
1150 Connecticut Avenue, NW | Suite 400 | Washington, DC 20036 
Direct: 202-857-5185 Mobile: 202-550-7073 
freda.amar@ihsmarkit.com 



— Do not delete or change any of the following text. — 

Join WebEx meeting 

Meeting number (access code): 634 122 839 


Join by phone 

+1 868 282 7366 US Toll Free 
+ 1 210 606 9466 US Toll 



If you are a host, go here to view host information. 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005582-00002 












From: Inge, Carolyn 

Location: DCRoomARN3500/OPEI 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Meeting with California Independent Petroleum Association: California-specific issues, 
including the Underground Injection Control Program 
Start Date/Time: Thur 5/11/2017 3:30:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Thur 5/11/2017 4:00:00 PM 


Hi 

Would you add this from Samantha’s calendar please? Much appreciated. 


Topic: Meeting with California Independent Petroleum Association: California-specific 
issues, including the Underground Injection Control Program 

Date: 5/11 

Time: 11:30-12:00 
Location: 3500 WJCN 

To: Bolen, Brittany < bolen.brittanv@epa.gov >; Gunasekara, Mandy 

< Gunasek3ra.Mandv@epa.gov >; Schwab, Justin < schwab.iustin@epa.qov >; 
rock@cip3.or g; Mimma Faudale < mfaudale@carpiclav.com >; Eric Swedlund 
( eswedlund@carpiclav.corn ) < eswedlund@carpiclav.com >; David Wetmore 
( dwetmore@carpiclav.com ) dwetrnore@carpiclav.com ; Greenwalt, Sarah 
< qreenwalt.sarah@epa.gov > 

Cc: Inge, Carolyn < lnqe.Carolvn@epa.QOv >; Kime, Robin < Kime,Robin@epa.gov > 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on 
your right as you exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 20 minutes 
prior to the meeting with photo IDs to clear Security. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all 
other matters call Robin Kime (202)564-6587. 


Request: We would welcome an opportunity to meet Mr. Pruitt in his office (or any other 
location convenient to him) to discuss California-specific EPA issues with the 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005583-00001 



Administrator, particularly the Underground Injection Control Program (UIC). 


Contact: 

Rock Zierman 

Chief Executive Officer 

California Independent Petroleum Association 

1001 K Street, 6 th Floor 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

916-447-1177 P 

916-447-1144 F 

rock@cipa.ora 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005583-00002 



From: Inge, Carolyn 

Location: DCRoomARN3500/OPEI 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Pipeline Permitting Opportunities with Enbridge 
Start Date/Time: Tue 5/9/2017 7:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Tue 5/9/2017 7:30:00 PM 


Hi 

Please add this from Samantha’s calendar. Thank you. 


Topic: Pipeline Permitting Opportunities with Enbridge 
Date: 5/9 

Time: 3:00 - 3:30 p.m. 

Location: 3500 WJCN 

Required: Bolen, Brittany < bolen.brittanv@epa.qov >; Gunasekara, Mandy 

< Guo3sek3r3.Mandv@epa.gov >; Schwab, Justin schwab.iustin@epa.Qov ; 
Pete.Sheffield@enbridae.com 

Cc: Inge, Carolyn < inqe.Carolvn@epa.qov >; Kime, Robin < Kime.Robin@epa.gov > 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on 
your right as you exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 20 minutes 
prior to the meeting with photo IDs to clear Security. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all 
other matters call Robin Kime (202)564-6587. 


Request: As a follow-up to the Administrator’s recent roundtable discussion in OKC, 
any chance you might be available to meet with Brad Shamla (our head of liquids 
pipeline operations in the U.S.)? 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005584-00001 



Contact: 


Pete Sheffield 
ENBRIDGE 

Vice President, U.S. External Affairs 
TEL: 202-347-2053 [ CELL: 202-997-3178 | 

20 F Street NW, Suite 550, Washington, D.C. 20001 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005584-00002 



From: Catanzaro, Michael J. EOP/WHO 

Location: 224 EEOB 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: CAFE meeting 

Start Date/Time: Fri 5/5/2017 6:30:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Fri 5/5/2017 7:30:00 PM 


-Original Appointment- 

From: Catanzaro, Michael J. EOP/WHO 
Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2017 2:33 PM 

To: Catanzaro, Michael J. EOP/WHO; Mitch Bainwol; David Schwietert; Dravis, 
Samantha; Bolen, Brittany (RPC); Gunasekara, Mandy (EPW); Owens, James (OST); 
Mary Neumayr ( Marv.B.Neumavr@ceq.eop.gov 1 

Subject: CAFE meeting 

When: Friday, May 5, 2017 2:30 PM-3:30 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & 
Canada). 

Where: 224 EEOB 

Your transportation request has been Updated. 

Reason for update : Pick Up Time changed 
Confirmation Number: 75150 

Passenger Information 

• Name: SAMANTHA DRAVIS/AA 

• Number: 2025662845 

• Pickup Time: 2017-05-05 15:45:00.0 

• Pickup Location: EEOB 

• Drop-Off Location: COURTYARD 

Vehicle Information 

• Tag: G41-5078M 

• Vehicle Type: MINI VAN 

• Make : DODGE 

• Model: CARAVAN 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005585-00001 






Color: SILVER 




17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005585-00002 



From: Inge, Carolyn 

Location: DCRoomARN3500/OPEI 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Meeting with Hyundai 

Start Date/Time: Fri 5/12/2017 2:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Fri 5/12/2017 2:30:00 PM 


Hi, 

Will you please set this up from Samantha’s calendar? Much appreciated. 


Topic: Meeting with Hyundai 
Date: 5/12 

Time: 10:00 - 10:30 a.m. 

Location: 3500 WJCN 

Required: rguerard@hvundai-dc.com : Bolen, Brittany < bolen.brittanv@epa.qov >; 

Gunasekara, Mandy < Gunasekara.Mandv@epa.gov >: Schwab, Justin 

< schwab.iustin@epa.oov > 

Cc: Inge, Carolyn < inQe.Carolvn@epa.gov >; Kime, Robin < Kime.Robin@epa.gov > 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your 
right as you exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 20 minutes prior to 
the meeting with photo IDs to clear Security. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all 
other matters call Robin Kime (202)564-6587. 


Contact: 

Richard B. Guerard 
Manager, Government Affairs 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005586-00001 



Hyundai Motor Company 
660 North Capitol Street NW 
Washington, DC 20001 
T: 202-279-1607 

rquerard@hvundai-dc.com 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005586-00002 



From: Inge, Carolyn 

Location: DCRoomARN3500/OPEI 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Meeting with the National Biodiesel Board to Discuss RFS & Biodiesel 
Start Date/Time: Wed 5/17/2017 5:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Wed 5/17/2017 5:30:00 PM 

NBB-RFS - RVQ-2018-201 9.pptx 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on 
your right as you exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 20 minutes 
prior to the meeting with photo IDs to clear Security. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all 
other matters call Robin Kime (202)564-6587. 

Attendees: 

Anne Steckel 
Sandra Franco 
Tom Hance 

Contact: 

Tom Hance 
Gordley Associates 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE, Suite 320 
Washington, DC 20003 
202-969-8900 

thance@qordlev.com 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005587-00001 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005587-00002 




with ERA Office of The Administrator 



17 , 2017 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 




BOARD 


ED 001523 00005588-00001 


















U.S. biodiesel and renewable diesel producers, feedstock providers, distributors an 
marketers - members represent the entire value chain 

Biodiesel is produced in plants across the country, from California to Maine 

• Biodiesel supports jobs throughout the economy 
■ Distribution is flexible, available and growing 

* \sseP? 



iodiesel uses a diversity of feedstocks 

BB started by soybean farmers, but has grown to include renderers, used cooking oil, canola oil, etc 
Co-products, by-products and wastes 

Biodiesel was the first U.S. commercial-scale advanced biofuel. 


2 



BOARD 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005588-00002 














ngress “prioritized” growth “as occurrii 
“Implied” Conventional at 15 billion ethanol 


ofuels” (81 Fed. Reg. at 89,78 


uiv 


ions 


2016 RFS 

* ERA estimated 2.5 billion gallons total biodiesel and renewable diesel as “maximum” - 80 Fed. 

■ Biomass-Based Diesel production alone exceeded 2.6 billion (over 4 billion RINs generated)* 

■ RIN Values consistent 


Reg. at 77,444 


NBB believed at least 4.75 billion ethanol-equivalent gallons could be easily achieved for Advanced Biofuels 
ERA set at 4.28 billion ethanol-equivalent gallons 
First quarter RIN generation exceeds that of 2016 

The Biomass-Based Diesel Industry Has Responded Every Time. 


Based on EPA EMTS 


f NATIONAL 

A am. 


emmm -jj 


i=?l 


BOARD 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005588-00003 







■ Timely Issuance of Standards 

■ We fully appreciate and support EPA’s efforts to stay on track from a timing perspective 

■ A Strong Growth Trajectory 

* 2018 RFS - At least 5.25 billion ethanol-equivalent gallons can be easily achieved for Advanced Biofuels 

■ Biomass-Based Diesel needed to meet Advanced Biofuels would still be below domestic capacity 

■ Imports continue to increase and more available, registered capacity 

■ There is feedstock available 

■ No limitations on distributing and using B20 throughout the Diesel and Distillate fuel market 

■ 2019 Biomass-Based Diesel - At least 2.75 billion gallons 

■ Strong growth signals from EPA can provide assurances for continued investment 

Biomass-Based Diesel is providing environmental, economic and energy security benefits sought. 


4 



BOARD 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005588-00004 









A 2.75 BILLION GALLON D4 MANDATE FOR 2019 WILL NOT 
UNDERMINE COMPETITION IN ADVANCED BIOFUELS 


* 2.75 billion gallon BBD mandate supports competition by; 

* Retaining existing unused US capacity (<65% capacity utilization - based on EIA, not counting many closed/idled plants) 

* Expanding and diversifying US biodiesel capacity 

* Promoting additional distribution investments 

* Allowing for lower transportation costs with increased scale 

* BBD doesn’t compete with other advanced fuels, e.g., cellulosic 

* No “crowding out” effect from increased D4 mandate 

* Supports certainty and increased investment in advanced biofuels 


Only other commercial-scale advanced biofuel! sugarcane ethanol imports into gasoline market 


* Uses beyond motor vehicles 


am 

o 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005588-00005 


















INDUSTRY OVERVIEW 


.S. Biomass-Based Diesel Market 


(millions of gallons) 

Source: EPA EMTS (data as of April 10, 2017) 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005588-00006 

















MORE THAN SUFFICIENT AVAILABLE SUPPL 


■ EPA estimates U.S. biodiesel registered capacity at approximately 3.5 billion gallons 
(81 Fed. Reg. at 83,782) 

■ EPA estimates U.S. renewable diesel registered capacity at approximately 0.7 billion gallons 
(81 Fed. Reg. at 89,872) 

» 3.5 plus .7 = 4.2 billion gallons (>6 billion RINs) 

■ Then there’s foreign registered production capacity and domestic D5 

■ Over 4 Billion Gallons in D4 Registered Capacity (Imports discussed later) (as of May 2016) 

■ Over 4 Billion Ethanol-Equivalent Gallons in D5 Foreign Registered Capacity (Genscape) 

■ Over 1 Billion Ethanol-Equivalent Gallons in D5 Domestic Capacity (Genscape) 

- Almost 800 Million Gallons in D3/D7 Foreign/Domestic Capacity (Genscape) 

Around 18 Billion Potential Available RINs. 


7 



BOARD 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005588-00007 











IMPORTS 


|Imported fuel 
Domestically produced fuel 


Foreign Capacity - Active* 


omestic Registered Capacity 


Totals = 


1,985 MG 


Data collected from U.S. EPA EMTS 
*From Key Countries 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 



More than 6.8 
billion gallons in 
registered 
capacity 



BOARD 


ED 001523 00005588-00008 














FEEDSTOCK PRICES AT OR BELOW 5 YEAR AVERAGE 


Feedstock Prices with BBD RVO at 2.75 billion in 2019 and Advaned 

Biofuels RVO at 5.25 billion in 2018 


Choice White Grease Soybean Oil 


Yellow Grease 


2012-16 ave SBO *““2012-16 ave YG •■**•2012-16 ave CWG 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005588-00009 

































Large projected US supplies of vegetable oils 

* Record US soybean acreage in 2017 (Mar Prospective 
Plantings Report) 

* Stocks to Use ratio projected to be 2x recent years 

Record US meat production (2017 AgOutlook 
Forum) 

Large South American crop harvested (WASDE) 


10 


ED 001523 00005588-00010 

















MORE THAN SUFFICIENT FEEDSTOCK 
EXPANSION OF SLAUGHTERING CAPACITY 


ac 


U.S Packing Capacity Under Construction 







Fall 2< 

D17 

Fall 21 

318 

III 

Daily Hd 

Ann Hd J||5 

Daily Hd 

Ann Hd 

)00 

2,500 

625,000 

2,500 

625,000 


4,000 

1,000,000 

4,000 

1,000,000 


12,000 

3,000,000 

12,000* 

3,000,000 


10,000 

2,500,000 

10,000 

2,500,000 




10,000 

2,500,000 

00 

28,500 

7,125,000 

38,500 

9,625,000 

119 


137,019 


185,096 



Mpay 


% 


m 


§ 































































MORE THAN SUFFICIENT FEEDSTOCK 
EXPANSION OF OILSEED PROCESSING CAPACITY 


Recent Headline 


Ag Processing Inc. to Construct Soybean Processing Plant in South 
Dakota—Dec 12, 2016 

Zeeland Farm Services building second soybean facility in Ithaca 

• • i• ■ as# *5# 

—October 5, 2016 


Minnesota Soybean Processors to pursue ND soybean processing plant 
—Feb 8. 2017 


12 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005588-00012 
















THANK YOU! 







iomass-based 





t 



% 

> 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 




















From: Kime, Robin 

Location: DCRoomARN3500/OPEI 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Meeting with Venable: EPA's Burden Reduction/Smart Sector Initiatives 
Start Date/Time: Tue 1/23/2018 4:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Tue 1/23/2018 4:30:00 PM 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your 
right as you exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 10 minutes prior to 
the meeting with photo IDs to clear Security. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all 
other matters call Robin Kime (202)564-6587. 


Request: The topic for discussion, which affects the wide range of business interests, 
involves a modification to EPA’s rules prescribing the types of secondary materials that 
can be recycled as legitimate fuels or ingredients in boilers and combustion devices in 
lieu of the use of virgin materials (commonly referred to as EPA’s rules for identifying 
“Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials that are Solid Wastes when Combusted” or the 
“NHSM rule,” set forth at 40 C.F.R. Part 241). 

Contact: 

Douglas H. Green, Esq. | Venable LLP 
t 202.344.4483 | f 202.344.8300 | m 202.716.1789 
600 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20001 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005591-00001 



From: Milhouse, Gloria 

Location: HQ-Room-WJCE-1153-150pp 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Retirement Celebration for Wendy Cleland-Hamnett 
Start Date/Time: Tue 8/15/2017 7:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Tue 8/15/2017 9:00:00 PM 

Wendy's Retirement Party rev.JPG 


Please Note! A new location change from the Green Room to “WJC -East- 
Conference Room 1153” at 3PM. 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005593-00001 



From: Inge, Carolyn 

Location: DCRoomARN3500/OPEI 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Meeting with Marathon Petroleum 

Start Date/Time: Tue 5/9/2017 8:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Tue 5/9/2017 8:30:00 PM 

20170505 EPA RIN Value Pass Through and with POO Moved May 9 Meeting.pptx 
20170509 EPA Logistics Overview.pptx 


Materials include: 

2 attachments 

http://stillwaterassociates.com/crack-spread-a-quick-and-dirty-indicator-of-refining- 

profitability. 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your 
right as you exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 20 minutes prior to 
the meeting with photo IDs to clear Security. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all 
other matters call Robin Kime (202)564-6587. 


Request: Dave Whikehart, our VP of Environment, Safety and Corporate Affairs, 
returning to town next week will stop in to go through the RIN and RIN value flow charts 
and will cover other topics as well. 


Contact: mibirsic@marathonpetroleum.com : 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005595-00001 



RIN Demand 

Refiner as Obligated Party 


EPA 



Consumer 


'he EPA demands RINs from the Refiner which creates the 

demand for renewable fuel blending 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005596-00001 









Physical RIN/Fuel Flow 

Refiner as Obligated Party 


Basis: 10 Gallons of E10 


EPA 



Consumer 


RIN flow connects the Renewable Fuel Producer, the Fuel Blender, 

and the Refiner to the EPA 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005596-00002 


















































































RIN Value Flow 
Refiner as Obligated Party 


Basis: 10 Gallons of E10 EPA 



The Consumer pays for the RIN value which then passes through the Fuel 
Blender and Refiner to ultimately subsidize the Renewable Fuel Producer 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005596-00003 

































































































RIN Pass Through Sequence 

Refiner as Obligated Party 


m:: 







Fue 
and 
Fue 


der p 
lost t< 


.. ■•JMIMI 

#3 fell np 

iiiMM 


m 


blend stock, 
the RIN 


I Ri 

througl 
the Fuel biei 
ner rece 


nei 




e R 

y) 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005596-00004 









































































































































































































RIN Demand 

Fuel Blender as Obligated Party 


EPA 



Consumer 


The EPA demands R/A/s from the fuel MMMML which creates the 

demand for renewable fuel blending 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005596-00005 














Physical RIN/Fuel Flow 

Fuel Blender as Obligated Party 


Basis: 10 Gallons of E10 


EPA 


1 RIN 



RIN flow connects only the Renewable Fuel Producer 

and the Fuel Blender to the EPA. 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005596-00006 








RIN Value Flow 

Fuel Blender as Obligated Party 



The Consumer pays for the RIN value which then passes through 
the Fuel Blender to subsidize the Renewable Fuel Producer 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005596-00007 






























RIN Pass Through Sequ 

Fuel Blender as Obligated Party 



4 No RIN value flows to the 


EPA 



Fuel Blender pays ethanol 
and RIN cost to Renewable 
Fuel Producer 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 




Total fuel cost includes the 
cost of the petroleum fuel 
blend stock, ethanol, and 
the RIN 

Retailer receives blended Fuel Retailer passes 
•om Fuel Blender through the RIN value to 

the Fuel Blender 

Blender receives petroleum Refiner receives the 
ilendstock from Refiner petroleum fuel blendstock 

value 

Blender remits RIN to the 




ED 001523 00005596-00008 

















































































































































































































































RIN Pass Through Sequence 

Comparison 



Consumer 


Refiner Obligated 


Consumer pays total fuel cost to Fuel 
Retailer 


Blender Obligated 


Consumer pays total fuel cost to Fuel 
Retailer 



No Physical Impact 
No RIN Value impact 


Fuel Retailer Fuel Retailer passes total fuel cost to 

Fuel Blender 


Fuel Retailer passes total fuel cost to 
Fuel Blender 


No Physical Impact 
No RIN Value Impact 


Fuel Blender 


Refiner 


Renewable Fuel 
Producer 


Fuel Blender pays petroleum fuel blend 
stock plus RIN cost to Refiner and 
ethanol and RIN cost to Renewable Fuel 
Producer 

Fuel Blender separates physical RIN 

Fuel Blender receives RIN Value from 
Refiner in exchange for physical RIN 
Refiner supplies petroleum fuel 
blendstock and receives petroleum 
blendstock value plus RIN value 

Refiner pays RIN value to Fuel Blender 
in exchange for physical RIN 

Refiner remits RIN to EPA 
Renewable Fuel Producer supplies 
ethanol with attached RIN and receives 
ethanol and RIN value 


Fuel Blender pays petroleum fuel blend No Net Physical Impact 
stock cost to Refiner and ethanol and No Net RIN Value Impact 
RIN cost to Renewable Fuel Producer 

Fuel Blender separates physical RIN 

Fuel Blender remits RIN to EPA 


Refiner supplies petroleum fuel No Net Physical Impact 

blendstock and receives petroleum fuel No Net RIN Value Impact 
blendstock value 


Renewable Fuel Producer supplies 
ethanol with attached RIN and receives 
ethanol and RIN value 


No Physical Impact 
No RIN Value impact 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005596-00009 








Fred Walas, 




mmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmim i 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005597-00001 
























17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005597-00002 




























Marketing Area 


1 MPC Refineries 

I 




Refining and Marketing 

■ Seven-plant refining system with ~1.8 MMBPCD capacity 

■ One biodiesel facility and interest in three ethanol facilities 

■ One of the largest wholesale suppliers in our market area 

■ One of the largest producers of asphalt in the U.S. 

■ ~5,500 Marathon Brand retail outlets across 19 states 

■ Owns/operates 20 asphalt/light product terminals, while utilizing third-party 
terminals at 121 light product and two asphalt locations 

■ 2,074 owned/leased railcars, 163 owned transport trucks 

Speedway 

■ ~2,730 locations in 21 states 

■ Second-largest U.S. owned/operated c-store chain 

Midstream (including MPLX) 

■ Owns, leases or has interest in ~10,800 miles of crude and refined product 
pipelines 

■ 62 light product terminals with ~24 million barrels of storage capacity 

■ 18 owned inland waterway towboats more than 200 owned and 18 leased 
barges 

■ Owns/operates over 5,600 miles of gas gathering and NGL pipelines 

■ Owns/operates 55 gas processing plants, 14 NGL fractionation facilities and two 
condensate stabilization facilities 


As of March 1, 2017 



Water Supplied Terminals 
Coastal 

flbWLi . j 

* 

JBh 


Pipelines 

MPC Owned & Operated 
MPC Interest: Operated by MPC 

m 

MPC Interest: Operated by Others 
Pipelines Used by MPC 


’nCpITFroduct ferminals irrrrr 
]PC Owned and Part-owned 

hird Party 

I 

Asphalt/Heavy Oil Terminals 
1PC Owned 


6 

i 


thanol Facility 


iodiesel Facility 




£RGY LOGISTICS 

PLX Terminals: 

! wned and Part-owned 

nk Farms 


MPLX Pipelines: 
*®“®wned & Operated 




Cavern 


TTf! 


MPLX Interest Pipelines: 
erated by Others 

Barge Dock 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005597-00003 





























































































































































































llllll 


. 








,4s of Jan. 1, 201 7 



BPCD = barrels per calendar day 






17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005597-00004 















































: 


Renewable Fuel 


Corn Ethanol Plants 

■ 67% equity interest* in Greenville, Ohio 

- 110 MM gallon/year capacity 

■ 61.1% equity interest in Clymers, Indiana 

- 110 MM gallon/year capacity 

■ 44.7% equity interest in Albion, Michigan 

- 55 MM gallon/year capacity 


: : : ' . ' i 


mm 










MB 

* 

t&m 










The Andersons Inc. operates the plants and 
provides all the facility services 


Biodiesel Refinery 

■ 100% owner in Cincinnati, Ohio 

■ ~60 MM gallon/year capacity 

■ Generates ~90 MM RINs per year 

* Supplied by both truck and rail, with river access in 
close proximity 


* Direct and indirect 


■Sift 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005597-00005 










































































■■It 
m 



xtensive Reta 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


Largest company-owned and - 
operated 

c-store chain east of the Mississippi 
~2,730 locations in 21 states 

Mmm 

~5 / 500 branded locations 

■ One of the largest asphalt marketers 
in the country 

■ Quality supplier into wholesale and 
secondary product markets 


ED 001523 00005597-00006 



































































































































































17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005597-00007 








..... 


V\V\V\V\VV 








Trans 

Mountain 

Expansion 


Burnaby 










Chicago 


\ 

k.. 


lS . 




Flanagan South 










Port Artf 
Houston 


ale Boom Resu 
. ines 


I \ . Canadia 


Trans 

Mountain 


MPC Refineries 


Pre-2010 Pipeline 

!► 2010-2016 - Major Project / New Pipeline 
^ 2017+ Planned Pipeline 


MARATHOI 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005597-00008 












































What were the top 5 oil producing countries in the world in 2016 ? 

1. Russia (10.6 MMBD) 

2 . Saudi Arabia (10.5 MMBD) 

3 . United States (8.9 MMBD) 

4 . Iraq (4.5 MMBD) 

5 . Iran (4.0 MMBD) 


What is the projected top 5 oil producing countries in 

6 . Saudi Arabia (10.5 MMBD) 

7 . Russia (10.4 MMBD) 

8 . United States (10.2 MMBD) 

9 . Iraq (4.5 MMBD) 

10 . China (4.1 MMBD) 


Source: El A, IE A 



SD&P - Crude Oil Analysis 

17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED 001523 00005597-00010 





rud< Oil . =. 2017 vs. 2025E 

m 


1 

if 









Foreign Imports 
via Gulf Coast 


» . 










1 


Utica 


Seaway oj 




away 




Permian/ 
Eagle Ford 


Permian/ 
Eagle Ford 


Foreign Imports 
via Gulf Coast 


Foreign Imports 
via Gulf Coast 


mmi 
wilhtm. 


MARATHON 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005597-00011 















17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005597-00012 










11 Q jr%ipirijpiQ in * f PinplinpQ 

Ur m %»w m I %, %0 Bill %& I I C? d I I Ul B I %M Ul %# Q» ■ ft |L# Hr I I I I 15? %*# 


Refinery Crude Capacity in MBPD based on O&G 



■■■ ... 

sill; ffi I S|s| 








I 






OP385 




ftilli 




’•nSIl'IVSSE'i, 




> rvPh IS? 


Ho#y75 




NuStara*: 


■'-ss;-:,;; 




SOT 

1 I 

warn. 


mmmi 


Murphyl25 


■OT30257 

MsteraSMS 


VtferoJKStt 


Idle Refineries 
Speciality Refineries 
Intermediate Refinery 

Asphalt Refineries 
US Refineries 


MPL Product Pipelines 
US Product Pipelines 
PADD Ml 
PADD II 
PADD I 




Ptmtfamnv 
*>beimmm 
W»t*rc>9£>' 




mm 

OTGO 440 

mmmtm 






Motn«285 

tmmu 

Vatem310 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005597-00013 























































































































































































































































































roduct 



Mode of Est. 

Transport Capacity 

MBPD 

Cycle 
Time in 
Days 

Transit Time in Days 
Minimum 

Transit Time in Days 

Maximum 

Buckeye 

Pipeline 

100 

7 

8.5 (Linden, NJ to 

Neville Island PA) 

Varies 

Explorer 

Pipeline 

640 

10 

9 (GC to Wood River) 

4 (Wood River to 
Chicago) 

25 (GC to Wood River) 

24 (Wood River to Chicago) 

Enterprise 

Pipeline 

IB 380 

10 

23 (GC to Indy) 

24 (GC to Griffith) 

25 (GC to Lebanon) 

Varies 

Barge 

Varies 

N/A 

16 (GC to Louisville) 

18 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005597-00014 

























































































































































































































































































































if 

■ jjjlf 

.. 


■ ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ■ ' ' ; ' ' ' 


Supply Source 


Major Midv 

S I 

Is there any overlap ? 


does the overlap 

mean? 




MARATHON 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005597-00015 














B11B11B11B11B11B11B11B11B1 BllBllBiBlB.g§®|i 


Source 

8 fi ww 


Major Midv 11 \ 

Is there any overlap? 




does the overlap 

mean? 




MARATHON 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005597-00016 






































Mill HI HI | 


■ ' ' '.' ■ ' ' ; ' ■ ' ■ ' 


Source 

8 m ww 


Major Midv 11 \ 

Is there any overlap? 


the overlap 
mean? 




MARATHON 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005597-00017 













'' 






_ 




What does the overlap 

mean? 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005597-00018 




























































®!I! lilt 


—i 

Mlii 






17cv01906 S erra C ub v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005597-00019 


What does the overlap 

mean? 




































lilt: 




What does the overlap 

mean? 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005597-00020 




















































Ua 


t©f 


W*9 


ICII 




Da 


#% 




5 IIP 





Refinery Production 


Purchases 
Inventory Draws 
Shipments from Gulf Coast 



Sales 

Inventory Builds 
Shipments to Gulf Coast 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005597-00021 















B11B11B11B11B11 


—§.Hill 


WM WM l~;|i 


Source 


Major Midv I , 

Is there anw overlap? 

w!r m 


What does the overlap 

mean? 




MARATHON 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005597-00022 



















From: Delahoyde, Magdelana A. EOP/WHO 

Location: SoW, EEOB 230A (WAVES link in Calendar Notes) 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Meeting to discuss CAFE-GHG standards 

Start Date/Time: Mon 11/27/2017 9:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Mon 11/27/2017 10:00:00 PM 

Meeting will be with Auto Alliance and Global Automakers. 

WAVES link: https://events.whitehouse.gov/?rid=YKPHQ233K7 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005598-00001 



From: Inge, Carolyn 

Location: HQ-Room-WJCN-2530-50pp 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Regulatory Reform Meeting with API 
Start Date/Time: Tue 5/16/2017 3:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Tue 5/16/2017 3:30:00 PM 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005599-00001 



From: Kime, Robin 

Location: 3513 A 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Meeting with Christopher Chapel 

Start Date/Time: Tue 1/16/2018 7:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Tue 1/16/2018 7:30:00 PM 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your right as you 
exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 10 minutes prior to the meeting with photo 
IDs to clear Security. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all other 
matters call Robin Kime (202)564-6587. 


Contact: christopher.chapel@nee.com 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005600-00001 



From: Inge, Carolyn 

Location: 3513 A 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Meeting with Will Lovell 

Start Date/Time: Thur 5/4/2017 1:30:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Thur 5/4/2017 2:00:00 PM 



Would you add this meeting from Samantha’s calendar please? Thank you. 

Topic: Meeting with Will Lovell 
Date: 5/4 

Time: 9:30 - 10:00 a.m. 

Location: 3513A 

Required: wdslovell@gmail.com : Bolen, Brittany bolen.brittanv@epa.gov 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005601-00001 



From: Delahoyde, Magdelana A. EOP/WHO 

Location: Diai-ln: (202) 395-6392; Leader Code: 295 3131; Participant Code: 201 3669 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: CAFE-GHG Update Call 

Start Date/Time: Mon 11/20/2017 10:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Mon 11/20/2017 11:00:00 PM 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005602-00001 



From: Delahoyde, Magdelana A. EOP/WHO 

Location: Diai-ln: (202) 395-6392; Leader Code: 661 0597; Participant Code: 345 2313 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Call: Prep for California Meeting 

Start Date/Time: Mon 11/13/2017 8:30:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Mon 11/13/2017 9:30:00 PM 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005603-00001 



From: Inge, Carolyn 

Location: DCRoomARN3500/OPEI 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Meeting with NAHB re: Renovation, Repair and Painting Program and Stormwater Issues 
Start Date/Time: Wed 5/10/2017 7:30:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Wed 5/10/2017 8:00:00 PM 

Stormwater Issues - NAHB Briefing 5.10.17.pdf 


Hi, 

Would you set this up from Samantha’s calendar Please? Thank you. 

Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on 
your right as you exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 20 minutes 
prior to the meeting with photo IDs to clear Security. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all 
other matters call Robin Kime (202)564-6587. 


4 Attendees: Tamra Spielvogel, Amy Chai, Eva Birk and Tom Ward 


Request: A follow-up conversation to discuss the RRP program. I’m emailing in follow¬ 
up to your conversation with Michael Mittelholzer at the NAHB meeting with 
Administrator Pruitt last week. I know several issues were discussed for additional follow¬ 
up during the meeting with the Administrator including the Renovation, Repair and 
Painting (RRP) Program and stormwater issues which my colleague Eva will be 
following up with you on in a subsequent message. 


Attached is the material you and Michael discussed to provide additional detail 
regarding NAHB’s concerns regarding implementation and evaluation of the RRP 
program. Specifically I have provided copies of NAHB’s comments related to the 
Section 610 review as well as those NAHB submitted during both public comment 
periods EPA opened during the review of issues related to the lack of an approved lead 
test kit. Also, for your information I am including copies of two petitions NAHB has filed 
with EPA on the RRP program. The most recent was in regards to the changes made to 
the refresher training course requirements which was denied by the agency in 
December 2016. The EPA response is also enclosed. I have enclosed the 2010 petition 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005604-00001 



because while the other documents discuss the issues we have with the economic 
analysis of the rule, it was most comprehensively addressed in this petition on the test 
kit. 


Finally, I was also told you are interested in the report where EPA’s cost benefit 
estimates were called into question. The report was issued by the EPA Office of the 
Inspector General. The following link will take you to the OIG page for the report where 
you can access their findings, the report, as well as the responses exchanged between 
OIG and EPA on the report. 


• https://www.ep3.Qov/office~inspector~general/report-review-hotline~compiaint~ 
concerninq-cost-and-benefit-estimates-epas 


I would note that one of the commitments made by the EPA to the OIG was to collect 
better data but they made the commitment to do so in the context of a separate 
rulemaking (the development of an RRP rule for Public & Commercial Buildings) and 
that survey is currently underway. NAHB individually and as part of an industry coalition 
has called into question the efficacy of this effort. While the data may be useful to the 
residential program collecting it in the context of the Public & Commercial Buildings rule 
has never seemed appropriate or truly illustrative given a range of other differences 
between the two rules. Furthermore, the data is being collected prior to establishing a 
hazard for Public & Commercial Buildings. 


Contact: 

TAMRA SPIELVOGEL Program Manager, Environmental Policy 
National Association of Home Builders 
1201 15th Street, NW | Washington, DC 20005 
d: 202.266.8327 e: tspielvoqel@nahb,orq w: nahb.org 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005604-00002 



Stormwater Issues 

National Association of Home Builders 
Briefing for Office of Policy - U.S. EPA 
May 10 th , 2017 


Background : 

Because the nature of construction involves earth-moving activities, NAHB members must comply with 
federal, state and local stormwater regulations (see chart below). During active construction, operators 
must seek coverage for any disturbance over one acre, or under one acre within a larger common plan 
of development. Builders and developers are also indirectly regulated under the Clean Water Act in 
regards to permanent, or post-construction stormwater requirements. The National Pollution Discharge 
Elimination System (NPDES) program requires either states or EPA regional offices where EPA is the 
permitting authority to issue permits to the owners/operators of small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer 
Systems (MS4s). MS4s are viewed as point sources under the Clean Water Act (CWA) since they 
discharge polluted stormwater via sewer outfalls directly into rivers and streams. 

Issues: 


1. Streamlined Small Lot Permit for Residential Sites 

• NAHB would like to continue to work with the Agency to develop a streamlined "small lot" 
active construction stormwater permit. We are concerned that these efforts may be stalled. 

• NAHB worked with Office of Wastewater Management (OWM) staff over the past three years to 
develop a streamlined voluntary compliance plan template for residential sites. However, we do 
not yet have a green light on developing an EPA permit based on this model. 

• NAHB believes the cost savings to small businesses from shrinking the current ~300 page permit 
down to 20 pages would be enormous. 

• Work needs to start soon to allow time for NAHB and other stakeholders to provide feedback, 
develop compliance assistance tools, and organize outreach to our membership. 

2. Federal Overreach In the NPDES Stormwater Program 

• In the four states where EPA is in charge of stormwater permitting, we've seen actions that far 
outreach the scope of the Clean Water Act. 

• Most recently, Region 3 included a provision in D.C/s draft Phase I MS4 permit which mandates 
that the city spend $12.75 million local dollars to establish a Stormwater Retention Credit (SRC) 
purchase agreement program. 

• We are gravely concerned with this type of federal meddling in municipal affairs and the 
precedent this permit will set. 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005605-00001 



How Section 402 Stormwater Rules affect Builders 


Active Construction 



* Cities and States often impose 
additional requirements. 


Permanent or Post-Construction 


EPA Phase II MS4 
Stormwater 
Regulations 


States 



■mm 

46 Authorized states 




issue individual or 
general MS4 Permits 

-1 - 


DC, ID, MA, NM, PR 


Municipal Separate Storm 
Sewer Systems (MS4s) 

Must produce Stormwater 
Management Plans (SWMPs) 



B i liiHorc 

Must comply with post¬ 
construction ordinances 
adopted by MS4s. (E.g., 
"capture and treat the 
first 1 inch of rainfall.") 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005605-00002 






















From: Kime, Robin 

Location: DCRoomARN3500/OPEI 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Regulatory Reform Meeting with the National Association of Clean Water Agencies 
Start Date/Time: Mon 11/20/2017 4:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Mon 11/20/2017 4:30:00 PM 


Request: A meeting on behalf of the National Association of Clean Water Agencies 
(NACWA), to discuss regulatory reform. 


In attendance will be Adam Krantz, Nathan Gardner, Chris Hornback and Brent 
Fewell. Note: Nathan, Adam and Chris have previously met with Lee and Sarah 
although not on these issues. 


Contact: 

Brent Fewell, Esq. | Earth & Water Law Group 

1455 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20004 

(202) 280-6362 (o) | (202) 664-9297 (c) | www.earthandwatergroup.com 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005606-00001 



From: Gunasekara, Mandy 

Location: 3415 WJC North 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: RF w/Miehael 

Start Date/Time: Thur 4/27/2017 1:30:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Thur 4/27/2017 2:30:00 PM 


POC: Valerie Washington 202.564.1016 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005607-00001 



From: Kime, Robin 

Location: 3513A and Call: 1 (855) 564-1700; Ext: 1104438; Participant: 234567 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Call with David Rachelson to Prepare for a Follow-up Meeting with the Administrator and 
Rubicon Global 

Start Date/Time: Wed 11/15/2017 7:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Wed 11/15/2017 7:30:00 PM 


Leader pin: 592233 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005608-00001 



From: Inge, Carolyn 

Location: DCRoomARN3500/OPEI 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Meeting with California Resources Corporation 
Start Date/Time: Wed 5/10/2017 3:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Wed 5/10/2017 3:30:00 PM 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005609-00001 



From: Bolen, Brittany 

Location: 3500 WJCN 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: VNG.co - Natural Gas Vehicles 

Start Date/Time: Mon 10/23/2017 3:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Mon 10/23/2017 3:30:00 PM 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your right 
as you exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 10 minutes prior to the meeting 
with photo IDs to clear Security. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all other 
matters call Robin Kime (202)564-6587. 


Purpose: Meeting to discuss Natural Gas Vehicles 
Contact: "Tucker, Jamie" < itucker@AKINGUMP.COM > 


Attendees: 

Robert Friedman, VNG 
Bon Atkinson, VNG 
Larry Highbloom, VNG 
Brad Couch, Ariel Corp 
Jamie Tucker, Akin Gump. 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005610-00001 



From: Inge, Carolyn 

Location: DCRoomARN3500/OPEI 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Meeting with Kohler on EPA's Clay MACT Rule 
Start Date/Time: Tue 5/16/2017 6:30:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Tue 5/16/2017 7:00:00 PM 

Comment.pdf 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your right 
as you exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 20 minutes prior to the meeting 
with photo IDs to clear Security. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all other 
matters call Robin Kime (202)564-6587. 


Attendees: 

James (Buddy) Robinson - Senior Vice President, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary, 
Kohler Co. 

Natalie Maciolek - Lead Attorney, Kohler Co. 

Kristine Heine - Executive Vice President, Global Communicators 


We will bring a copy of the comment we will submit to the docket on Monday, and leave you 
with a couple short documents that we will discuss with you during our meeting 


Contact: 

Natalie Maciolek 
Lead Attorney 


KOHLER 

Office: (920) 459-1685 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005611-00001 


Mobile: (920) 917-8948 


Email: Natalie.Maciolek@kohler.com 

444 Highland Drive | Kohler | WI | 53044 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005611-00002 



KOHLER 


Submitted electronically through http://www.regulations.gov 

May 15, 2017 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
Docket Number: EPA HQ OA-2017 0190 
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 
Washington, D.C. 20460 

Re: Evaluation of Existing Regulations, Docket No. EPAHQOA-2017 0190, FRL-9961-60- 

OP, 82 Fed. Reg. 17793 (April 13, 2017) 

To Whom It May Concern: 

Kohler Co. (Kohler) appreciates this opportunity to identify regulations that may be appropriate for 
repeal, replacement, or modification pursuant to the referenced docket. Kohler understands that the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has formed a Regulatory Reform Task Force pursuant to 
Executive Order 13777 (82 FR 12285 - March 1, 2017) that has been charged with, among other things, 
identifying regulations that: 

Eliminate jobs, or inhibit job creation; 

- Are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective; 

Impose costs that exceed benefits; or 

Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with regulatory reform initiatives and 
policies. 

On March 24, 2017, EPA Administrator Pruitt issued an agency-wide memorandum on implementation 
of Executive Order 13777, which directed program offices to seek public input on existing regulations 
that might meet these criteria. As explained below, Kohler believes that EPA's Clay Ceramics National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants rule, 40 CFR 60, Subpart KKKKK (Clay MACT Rule), and 
the regulation of emissions testing of non-road engines and generator sets as stationary sources, each 
meets one or more of these criteria. As such, both rules warrant consideration by EPA for repeal, 
replacement or modification under this initiative. Aspects of each rule contain requirements that 
impose significant expense with no discernable benefit, threatening Kohler's competitiveness in the 
global economy. 

Background 

Kohler, founded in 1873, is one of America's oldest and best known manufacturers. The Company is a 
leading maker of kitchen and bath fixtures and also manufactures small engines used in off-road 
equipment, generators and water pumps, as well as generators powered by KOHLER engines and other 

1 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005612-00001 


leading engine manufacturers. Kohler competes in the global marketplace and therefore always must 
be mindful of the increasing burden of United States government regulation on Kohler's international 
competitiveness. As such, Kohler supports the Administration's effort to reduce the regulatory burden 
on American manufacturing companies while not undermining environmental protection. The latter 
point is critical to Kohler, as we firmly believe that integrating business and environmental practices is 
undeniably better for everyone — our company, our associates, our customers, and the environment. 

Indeed, Kohler believes that better business 
and a better environment go hand in hand. 

Kohler works hard to reduce the Company's 
environmental impact. We have committed 
to a goal of sending no solid waste to 
landfills, reducing or offsetting 100% of our 
greenhouse gas emissions and reducing our 
water usage through a program called "Net 
Zero 2035" (see graph). Kohler has been 
driving growth and innovation by developing 
products that have lower environmental 
impacts over their entire life cycle, and we 
are systematically incorporating 
sustainability into the product development 
process itself. 

Clay NESHAP Rule Background 

The 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act (CAA) establish a fairly complex program to regulate 
emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) from specific industrial source categories. The program 
requires EPA to establish National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) that 
regulate HAP emissions emitted by discreet industrial source categories throughout the country. 

NESHAPs apply to major sources of HAP emissions and also can apply "as deemed appropriate by EPA" 
to minor sources. Major sources are defined as those that emit 10 tons per year of any single HAP, or 
25 tons per year of all HAPs combined. Minor sources (a/k/a "area sources") have HAP emissions 
below these major source thresholds. 

As a general matter, major source HAP emission limitations are more stringent. For a major source 
category, EPA will impose technology-based emission standards requiring the maximum degree of 
reduction in emissions that EPA deems achievable, often referred to as "maximum achievable control 
technology" or MACT standards. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7412(d)(l)-(2). Achievability is determined based upon 
a review of the best performing similar sources in the category using clean processes, emission control 
devices, work practices, or other pollution reduction methods. Id. These best performing emissions 
levels set a baseline, or "MACT floor," for creating the MACT standard. The floor differs for existing and 


■ Reduce energy use. and: grgenhouseijas' 
;sffsef ; :the rernaWrig ■' 


SendzerosoJjd: 
waste toiandfiB 


Bedyca-water.use. 
pgr mbS ■ oCtwersie:;' ^ 
. ••t ■ 



Wve fp&wth irr 
ppstatnabie phadycts : 
and: servfoes .. 


Tfe safest me&m-p fwwi.?0$w>tiiw4 

?wtte up fer -tfs® QHG; amssicsr© 

. 


BuM aiu : staln.a&lty-fflsnd#d culture ■ 


2 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005612-00002 














new sources, with new sources having stricter emission limitations. The more stringent a MACT floor, 
the more stringent the associated MACT limitation. 

For area source categories, EPA may choose to promulgate emission standards that reflect "generally 
available control technologies or management practices" as a HAP emission limitation. 42 U.S.C. § 
7412(d)(5). These standards can be - and typically are - less rigorous than those required for major 
sources under 42 U.S.C. § 7412(d)(1). 

Kohler Co/s Concerns with EPA's Co location Interpretation of the Clay MACT Rule 

Kohler currently employs approximately 9,000 associates at its three locations where it has 
sanitaryware manufacturing facilities impacted by the Clay MACT Rule (1,700 of whom are dedicated 
to sanitaryware operations). These sanitaryware facilities are located in Wisconsin, South Carolina and 
Texas and manufacture toilets, sinks and other ceramic kitchen and bath fixtures. 

Kohler Co. is the only sanitaryware company affected by the Clay MACT Rule, which makes it cost- 
prohibitive for Kohler to expand its existing sanitaryware facilities at these locations because they are 
regulated as "major sources" due to EPA's co-location interpretation of the CAA. Kohler's sanitaryware 
facilities themselves are minor (area) sources based on the low HAP emissions levels associated with 
the sanitaryware manufacturing processes. However, solely because Kohler's sanitaryware facilities are 
co-located with other Kohler manufacturing operations, the sanitaryware units are now regulated by 
EPA as "major" sources. In other words, EPA's policy is to aggregate HAP emissions from the 
sanitaryware area sources with all other HAP emissions from unrelated co-located processes. This 
policy results in Kohler's sanitaryware facilities being regulated as major sources, with the attendant 
more stringent pollution control requirements, even though the HAP emissions from the sanitaryware 
facilities are below major source thresholds. The EPA's policy makes little sense since the HAP 
emissions from Kohler's sanitaryware operations are not any higher simply because the facilities are 
located next to other manufacturing operations. EPA's interpretation of the CAA essentially penalizes 
Kohler for having built sanitaryware operations next to other operations long before the CAA was in 
existence. 

The Clay MACT Rule puts Kohler's sanitaryware facilities at a significant competitive disadvantage vis-a- 
vis foreign-owned competitors, which do not have to comply with the Clay MACT Rule as they operate 
only sanitaryware facilities, which are area sources themselves, and are not co-located with any other 
major sources. Foreign-owned competitors are not subject to the same compliance costs, including 
additional testing, monitoring, record keeping and reporting obligations, when operating their existing 
facilities, or when considering where to build and expand. This gives them a competitive advantage. 

While it may not have been the intent of EPA to single out Kohler, the Clay MACT Rule does just that, 
with no measurable benefit to the environment, as Kohler's sanitaryware facilities do not emit HAPs at 
major sources quantities. Moreover, Kohler is placed at a competitive disadvantage by being subjected 
to more stringent and costly regulatory requirements even though its HAP emissions may be similar to, 
or lower than, those of its foreign-owned competitors. 

3 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005612-00003 



The EPA's co-location policy for determining "major source" status for the various source categories 
should be revised or eliminated. The CAA identifies specific industrial source categories for a reason, 
and "major source" determinations should be based solely on emissions output from each source 
category in operation at any facility site, and not by a company's siting decisions made decades before 
the CAA was even enacted. This change would ensure a level playing field for all businesses in a given 
category, and would not impose and force us to waste "major source" compliance resources on 
sources with HAP emissions at the levels of a minor (area) source. 

Kohler Co/s Concerns with the MACT Floor Used to Establish the Clay MACT Limitations 

Kohler maintains that EPA violated the CAA by using emission data that was not representative of an 
existing sanitaryware kiln operating at the time of the Agency's rulemaking to set the MACT floor for 
the Clay MACT Rule. Rather than collect emissions data from an existing sanitaryware kiln, in 2010 EPA 
directed Kohler to change the operational configuration of a sanitaryware kiln by operating an 
emission scrubber while testing the HAP emissions from that kiln. At that time, there was no federal or 
state requirement to operate the kiln with a scrubber, nor did Kohler operate its kiln with a scrubber. 
The EPA mandated testing measured artificially low HAP emissions from the kiln that did not reflecting 
real world emissions rates. Nonetheless, EPA used this scrubber-related emissions data to establish the 
existing source emissions floors in the Clay MACT Rule. As a consequence, many of the HAP limitations 
in the Clay MACT Rule are predicated upon an emissions floor that assumes existing sanitaryware 
facilities in the United States operate with scrubber technology - a premise that is simply not true. 

On December 23, 2015, Kohler filed a Petition for Administrative Reconsideration of the Clay MACT 
Rule that raised this issue. See Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290. By letter dated May 12, 2016, EPA 
denied the Petition with respect to this issue. Kohler also filed a Petition for Judicial Review of the Clay 
MACT Rule with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which challenges the 
manner in which EPA established the MACT floor. See Sierra Club, et al. v. US EPA, et al., Case No. 15- 
1487 (and consolidated cases)(D.C. Cir.). The appeal has been fully briefed, but oral argument has not 
yet been scheduled. 

Notwithstanding these other administrative and judicial proceedings, EPA should, at a minimum, 
revise the existing source floor analysis in the Clay MACT Rule without the data points generated by 
this fabricated "existing" kiln utilizing a scrubber. 


Emissions Testing of Non road Engines and Generator Sets as Stationary Sources 


Kohler Co. manufactures and tests non-road engines and generator sets. Kohler believes the testing of 
these engines and generators is exempt from stationary source rules; specifically, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7602(z), 
7543, and 7550, and 40 CFR § 1068.30. EPA Region 7 issued a guidance letter dated November 10, 
2016, to the Air Quality Bureau of the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, stating this type of 
testing is exempt from stationary source rules. See https://www.epa.gov/nsr/john-deere-dubuque- 
works-stationary-ormobife-source-determination. Kohler requests EPA further clarify this in their 
rules and among all EPA regions, so that these operations are treated equitably across the U.S. 


4 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005612-00004 




Conclusion 


Kohler believes the aforementioned rules warrant consideration for repeal, replacement, or 
modification. EPA should promulgate rules and establish policies consistent with the requirements 
under the CAA without unfairly singling out and penalizing a U.S. company, which provides good 
manufacturing jobs for thousands of Americans and contributes to our national economic growth. We 
would welcome EPA directing a staff member to work with our environmental team to find a way to 
make these rules workable. 


Respectfully, 
Kohler Co. 


5 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005612-00005 



From: Viator, Brad 

Location: 1-800-882-3610 passcode 8438589 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Call RE EEI External Affairs Meeting 

Start Date/Time: Fri 10/20/2017 6:30:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Fri 10/20/2017 7:00:00 PM 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005613-00001 



From: Kime, Robin 

Location: 3513 A 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Meeting with Kristina Moore 

Start Date/Time: Tue 11/21/2017 7:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Tue 11/21/2017 7:30:00 PM 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your 
right as you exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 10 minutes prior to 
the meeting with photo ID to clear Security. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all 
other matters call Robin Kime (202)564-6587. 


Contact: Kristina.Moore@fticonsulting.com 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005614-00001 



From: Kime, Robin 

Location: DCRoomARN3500/OPEI 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Meeting with the Mosaic Company re: Smart Sectors 
Start Date/Time: Tue 10/24/2017 5:30:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Tue 10/24/2017 6:00:00 PM 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your right as you 
exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 10 minutes prior to the meeting with photo 
IDs to clear Security. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all other 
matters call Robin Kime (202)564-6587. 


Request: I was able to join the Smart Sectors kick-off event yesterday. It really is exciting to see 
industry and government working together to find solutions to environmental issues. I am 
located here in DC for The Mosaic Company. We are a U.S. mining and manufacturing 
company (we mine phosphate and potash to make critical crop nutrients or fertilizer for farmers 
in the US and around the world) that touches a few sectors. We submitted comments to the 
EPA earlier this year on regulatory reform. I’d love to come by and give you more info on who 
we are and what we have been experiencing in the permitting area. If it works to also include the 
liaison for chemical manufacturing that would be great. My colleague Eileen Stuart will be joining 
me as well. 


Contact: Lorine D. Card |Federal Government Affairs 

The Mosaic Company | 300 M Stre et S E 1 Suite 402 1 Washington, DC 20003 
P: 202.420.9893 | M: 202.641.7755 | E: iorine.card@mosaicco.com | www 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005615-00001 



From: Inge, Carolyn 

Location: 3513 A 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Call in Advance of the Administrator’s 4/27 Meeting with Auto Alliance - Please call the EPA 

Polycom (202)501-1854 

Start Date/Time: Tue 4/25/2017 9:15:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Tue 4/25/2017 9:35:00 PM 



Will you add this for today please from Samantha’s calendar? Thanks 


Topic: Call in Advance of the Administrator’s 4/27 Meeting with Auto Alliance - Please call the 
EPA Polycom (202) 501-1854 

Date: Today 

Required: Bolen, Brittany bolen.brittany@epa.gov : Schwab, Justin schwab.iustin@epa.gov : 
ithomas@autoalliance.org 

Cc: Kime, Robin < Kime.Robin@epa.gov >: Inge, Carolyn < Inge.Carolyn@epa.gov >: Irving, 
Verna < Irving.Verna@epa.gov > 

Location: 3513A 

Time: 5:15 p.m. to 5:35 p.m. 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005616-00001 



From: Kime, Robin 

Location: DCRoomARN3500/OPEI 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: National Coalition for Advanced Transportation Discussion re: Mid-term Evaluation for LDV 
Start Date/Time: Fri 11/3/2017 5:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Fri 11/3/2017 5:30:00 PM 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your right as you 
exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 10 minutes prior to the meeting with photo 
IDs to clear Security. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all other 
matters call Robin Kime (202)564-6587. 


Contact: 

Robert A. Wyman, Jr. 

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 

Email: robert.wyman@lw.com<mailto:robert.wyman@lw.com > 


355 South Grand Avenue 
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560 
Direct: +1.213.891.8346 


Attendees: 

Bob Wyman (Latham) 

Devin O'Connor (Latham) 

Amy Pressler (Edison International) 
Marc Lamplcin (Brownstein Hyatt) 
Joe Mendelson (Tesla) 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005617-00001 



Rohan Patel (Tesla) 

Emily Duncan (Exelon) 
Melissa Lavinson (PG&E) 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005617-00002 



From: Inge, Carolyn 

Location: DCRoomARN3500/OPEI 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Meeting with We Are Golf (WAG) 

Start Date/Time: Wed 4/26/2017 6:30:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Wed 4/26/2017 7:00:00 PM 


From: Kime, Robin 

Sent: Monday, April 24, 2017 1:19 PM 

To: Inge, Carolyn < Inge.Carolyn@epa.gov > 

Subject: Meeting with We Are Golf (WAG) 


Hi 

Please add this from SD’s calendar. Thanks 


Hi- will you add this name to the invitation? Thanks 


elannan@Torbes-tate.com 


Topic: Meeting with We Are Golf (WAG) 

Date: 4/26 

Time: 11:45 a.m. - 12:15 p.m. 

Location: 3530 or one of the rooms above it please 

Required: isadoskv@forbes-tate.com : Bolen, Brittany bolen.brittanv@epa.gov 

Cc: Kime, Robin < Kime.Robin@epa.qov >; Inge, Carolyn < lnge.Carolyn@epa.gov >; 
Irving, Verna < lrving.Verna@epa.oov >: Germann, Sandy < Germann.Sandv@epa.gov > 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005618-00001 



Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on 
your right as you exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 20 minutes 
prior to the meeting with photo IDs to clear Security. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all 
other matters call Robin Kime (202)564-6587. 


Request: We represent a golf coalition you may be familiar with called We Are Golf 
(WAG). The coalition was formed in 2008 with the express purpose of giving decision¬ 
makers in Washington a more accurate picture of the golf industry and the game of golf 
in general. Negative assumptions about who plays, where they play etc. and a lack of 
recognition about how many jobs golf provides and the nature of those jobs had lead to 
punitive singling out of golf in policymaking and legislation. Apart from clearing the air on 
those fronts, WAG has also invested a lot of the coalition’s efforts in advocating around 
environmental issues. It's that set of issues we of course would love to talk about with 
Administrator Pruitt and your appropriate EPA colleagues. 


The golf industry has made huge strides in recent years when it comes to sustainable 
management of the two million acres of open space golf course land and water we have 
in this country. We have a great story to tell about huge steps we have taken forward to 
improve water quality and use, energy savings, pollution reduction and creation and 
protection of high quality fish and wildlife habitat. We want to stay on this trajectory and 
firmly believe we can continue to improve golf property stewardship to provide broad 
public benefits. In recent years, federal policies have unfortunately represented drags 
on our ability to do this. The golf industry is very excited about starting some fresh 
conversations with this administration and we’d like to start at EPA with your boss. WAG 
is eager to work with an administration that will have an interest in pausing to think 
through how any new policies or enforcement of existing policies will impact the golf 
industry’s ability to increase the environmental value of golf. 


Attendees: 

Steve Mona, Chief Executive Officer, World Golf Foundation 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005618-00002 



Darell Crall, Chief Operating Officer, PGA of America 

Ty Votaw, Chief Marketing Office, PGA Tour 

Kathryn Carson, Chief Legal Officer, United States Golf Association 

Rhett Evans, Chief Executive Officer, Golf Course Superintendents Association of 
America 

Jay Karen, Chief Executive Officer, National Golf Course Owners Association 

Jeff Morgan, Chief Executive Officer, Club Managers Association of America 

Michael Kline, Director of Intellectual Property and Corporate Secretary, 
Srixon/Cleveland Golf US Golf Manufacturers Council 

More on We Are Golf and National Golf Day can be found here: 

http://weareqoif.org 


Contact: 

Jeffrey C. Sadosky 

isadoskv@forbes-tate.com 

Forbes-Tate Partners 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005618-00003 



From: Kime, Robin 

Location: 3500 WJCN 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Meeting with Samsung: TV Energy Star Standards 

Start Date/Time: Wed 10/25/2017 5:30:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Wed 10/25/2017 6:00:00 PM 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your right as you 
exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 10 minutes prior to the meeting with photo 
IDs to clear Security. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all other 
matters call Robin Kime (202)564-6587. 


Request: Samsung would appreciate the opportunity to meet Samantha to discuss TV energy star 
standards. 

Contact: Demi A. Yeager 
Executive Assistant 

BGR Government Affairs, LLC 

-wIKKm • 

The Homer Building 
Eleventh Floor South 
601 Thirteenth Street, NW 
Washington, DC 20005 
Direct: (202) 661.6355 
Fax:(202)833-9392 
dveager@bgrdc .com 

Attendees: 

Prema Tomar - Samsung 
John Godfrey - Samsung 
Kristin Strobel - BGR Group 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005619-00001 



From: Inge, Carolyn 

Location: 3513E 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Call to Discuss the Four Corners Power Plant - Please call the EPA Polycom (202) 501-1854 
Start Date/Time: Mon 4/24/2017 8:15:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Mon 4/24/2017 8:45:00 PM 



Will you add this from SD’s calendar today please - thank you. 


Topic: Call to Discuss the Four Corners Power Plant - Please call the EPA Polycom 
(202) 501-1854 

Date: Today 

Time: 4:15 - 4:30 p.m. 

Location: 3513E 

Required: Bolen, Brittany < bolen.brittanv@epa.gov >; Gunasekara, Mandy 

Gunasekara.Mandv@epa.gov : megan.berge@bakerbotts.com 

Cc: Kime, Robin < Kime.Robin@epa.gov >: Inge, Carolyn < inge.Carolvn@epa.aov >: 
Irving, Verna < irving.Verna@epa.gov > 


Request: 

I represent APS, the operator of the Four Corners Power Plan located on the Navajo 
Nation. We would like to discuss with you a federal implementation plan finalized in 
early January that affects the plant. We are preparing materials on the FIP; in short, 
APS is concerned with certain monitoring requirements that restrict plant operations 
without providing environmental benefits. APS believes there are more effective and 
less burdensome monitoring options available. I would appreciate the chance to speak 
with you about the FIP, which has not yet been published in the federal register. 


Contact: 

Megan Heuberger Berge 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005620-00001 



Partner 

BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. 

The Warner | 1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW | Washington, DC 20004 
1.202.639.1308 (direct) | 1.202.256.0827 (cell) 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005620-00002 



From: Kime, Robin 

Location: 3500 WJCN 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Meeting with National Marine Manufacturers to Discuss HFC 134a 
Start Date/Time: Mon 10/16/2017 6:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Mon 10/16/2017 6:30:00 PM 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your right as you exit the 
Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 10 minutes prior to the meeting with photo IDs to clear 
Security. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all other matters call 
Robin Kime (202)564-6587. 

Attendees: 

Scott Lewit, Structural Composites, Inc and Compsys, Inc 

Mark Ehrlich, Wabash National 

John McKnight, NMMA 

Andrea Campbell, VanNess Feldman 

George Cooper, Forbes Tate Partners 

Jeff Sadosky, Forbes Tate Partners 


Request: Earlier this year, our client the National Marine Manufacturers had a very productive meeting 
with your team at the EPA focused on E15 issues. At that meeting, we also raised an issue regarding 
something called HFC 134a. NMMA member company Structural Composites is using HFC 134a to 
produce some extraordinary new products - ultra-light weight composite material being used to make 
boats and truck trailers primarily, but they are hindered by EPA regulatory issues. 


Contact: 

Jeffrey C. Sadosky 
Forbes Tate Partners 
111 6th Street NW 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005621-00001 



8th Floor 


Washington, DC 20001 
(202) 340-8586 cell 

isadoskv@forbes-tate.com 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005621-00002 



From: Kime, Robin 

Location: DCRoomARN3500/OPEI 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Meeting with Noble Energy 
Start Date/Time: Fri 5/5/2017 3:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Fri 5/5/2017 3:30:00 PM 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your right 
as you exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 20 minutes prior to the meeting 
with photo IDs to clear Security. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all other 
matters call Robin Kime (202)564-6587. 


Request: I would like very much to meet with you soon regarding a few ideas we have regarding 
air quality reform. I have a long (I am old) histoiy on these issues from an oil and gas industry 
perspective, as well as State (CO) and Federal (EPA Hdqtrs and Region 8) roles. Noble is 
solution-oriented and would like to bring a few ideas to your attention. Any chance of meeting 
next Thursday or the following week? Depending on scheduling, I may bring our EVP of 
Environmental to the meeting. 


Contact: 

Kate Fay 

Director, Environmental and Regulatory Policy 
Noble Energy, Inc. 

1625 Broadway, Suite 2200 
Denver, Colorado 80202 


1001 Noble Energy, Way 
Houston, TX 77070 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005622-00001 



303.910.2830 (cell) 

720.587.2397 (office) 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005622-00002 



From: Kime, Robin 

Location: DCRoomARN3500/OPEI 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Meeting with Portland Cement 
Start Date/Time: Mon 5/1/2017 2:30:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Mon 5/1/2017 3:00:00 PM 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your right 
as you exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 20 minutes prior to the meeting 
with photo IDs to clear Security. 


For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all other matters call Robin 
Kime (202)564-6587. 


Request: Call with Todd and his environment and regulatory affairs lead, Mike Schon, to 
discuss pending issues before EPA and some of key ideas for improving and 
streamlining permitting and regulations that affect the cement industry. 

Contact: 

A. Todd Johnston 
Executive Vice President 
Portland Cement Association 
202-719-1974 (o) 

202-253-4464 (c) 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005623-00001 



From: Kime, Robin 

Location: 3500 WJCN 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Meeting with the Petroleum Marketers Association of America (PMAA) 

Start Date/Time: Tue 11/7/2017 6:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Tue 11/7/2017 6:30:00 PM 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your 
right as you exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 10 minutes prior to 
the meeting with photo IDs to clear Security. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all 
other matters call Robin Kime (202)564-6587. 


Participants: 

Rob Underwood 

PMAA Regulatory Counsel, Mark Morgan 

Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Stores of Iowa’s regulatory counsel, John 
Maynes 


Contact: 

Rob Underwood 
President 

Petroleum Marketers Association of America (PMAA) 

1901 North Fort Myer Drive, Suite 500 

Arlington, VA 22209 

Email: runderwood@pmaa.org 

Work: 703.351.8000 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005624-00001 



Cell: 703.470.4566 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005624-00002 



From: Kime, Robin 

Location: DCRoomARN3500/OPEI 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Meeting with AXPC to Discuss Air Issues 
Start Date/Time: Wed 4/26/2017 8:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Wed 4/26/2017 8:30:00 PM 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your right 
as you exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 20 minutes prior to the meeting 
with photo IDs to clear Security. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all other 
matters call Robin Kime (202)564-6587. 


Request: A meeting to discuss air issues with the some of the member companies of the 
American Exploration & Production Council (www.axpc.com ) www.axpc.com on Wednesday, 
April 26th. As you may know, AXPC is comprised of the 33 largest independent E&Ps (list 
below) and we are hosting a fly-in of the member companies' Environment Health and Safety 
(EHS) subject matter experts to discuss air issues impacting the industry. We will have 6 or 8 
folks from our side. 

Attendees : 

Bruce Thompson, President of AXPC 

Jagadeesan Sethuraman Whiting Petroleum 
Adell Heneghan PDC Energy 

Teresa Hull SM Energy 

Megan Garvey QEP Resources 


Contact: 

Ryan Day Thompson | Senior Policy Advisor 
AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 

Mobile: +1 202.236.7885 | thompsonr@akinqump.com | akinqump.com | Bio 


AXPC Member Companies 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005625-00001 



Anadarko Petroleum Corporation 
Apache Corporation 
Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation 
Chesapeake Energy Corporation 
Cimarex Energy Co. 

Concho Resources, Inc. 

Devon Energy Corporation 
Diamondback Energy, Inc. 

EnCana Corporation 
Energen Resources Corporation 
EnerVest, Ltd. 

EOG Resources, Inc. 

EP Energy, Corp. 

Jonah Energy LLC 
Linn Energy LLC 
Marathon Oil Corporation 
Newfield Exploration Company 
Noble Energy, Inc. 

Oasis Petroleum Inc. 

Occidental Oil & Gas Corporation 
PDC Energy, Inc. 

Pioneer Natural Resources Company 
QEP Resources, Inc. 

Range Resources Corporation 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005625-00002 



Rice Energy Inc. 

Seneca Resources Corporation 
SM Energy Company 
Southwestern Energy Company 
Synergy Resources Corporation 
Ultra Petroleum Corp. 

Whiting Petroleum Corporation 
WPX Energy, Inc. 

XTO Energy, Inc. 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005625-00003 



From: Kime, Robin 

Location: DCRoomARN3500/OPEI 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Meeting with the Northwest Public Power Association 
Start Date/Time: Tue 4/25/2017 3:30:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Tue 4/25/2017 4:00:00 PM 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on 
your right as you exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 20 minutes 
prior to the meeting with photo IDs to clear Security. 


For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all other matters call 
Robin Kime (202)564-6587. 


Attendees: 

Anita Decker, Executive Director NWPPA 

Doug Hardy, Central Montana Electric Power Cooperative, MT 

Dave Kelsey, Yellowstone Valley Electric Cooperative, MT 

Norman Tebay, Vigilante Electric Cooperative, MT 

Clay Koplin, Mayor of Cordova, AK 

Brad Janorschke, Homer Electric Association, AK 

Molly Simpson, Douglas County Public Utility District, WA 

Steve Taylor, Mason County Public Utility District #1, WA 

Contact: 

Theresa Pugh Consulting, LLC 
-a woman-owned small business 
703-507-6843 Office 
2313 North Tracy Street 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005626-00001 



Alexandria, Virginia 22311 

www.theresapuqhconsultinq.com 


Request: I am writing today on behalf of Northwest Public Power Association 
(NWPPA)’s Executive Director Anita Decker. Anita will be in Washington D, C. from 
Washington state on April 25-26, 2017. She would like to meet with Administrator Pruitt, 
you or other political appointees who are assigned to work on electric utility issues of 
interest to NWPPA. 


NWPPA is an electric utility association in the Pacific Northwest representing 151 
hydroelectric, nuclear power and natural gas electric utilities (municipal and electric 
coops) affected by EPA regulations including some that are going to be revisited under 
recent Executive Orders. Their membership involves many electric utilities (municipal 
and coop) that would be affected by EPA regulations across several states in the 
Northwest—not just those in Washington state. NWPPA’s member utilities serve 20 
million customers making it one of the largest electric utility organizations in the western 
part of the United States. 


They are interested in the following: 

• Waters of the US - next steps (realizing it has been addressed in the Executive 
Order) 

• Clean Power Plan review and replacement (they are aware of the Executive Order 
action last week) 

• General EPA priorities related to the electric power sector 


A link to the NWPPA organization is https://www.nwppa.org/about-nwppa/ and board 
information at https://www.nwppa.org/about-nwppa/nwppa-board-of-trustees/ 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005626-00002 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005626-00003 



From: Kime, Robin 

Location: 3500 WJCN 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Meeting with Boeing and GE 

Start Date/Time: Thur 10/5/2017 2:30:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Thur 10/5/2017 3:00:00 PM 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your 
right as you exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 10 minutes prior to 
the meeting with photo IDs to clear Security. 


Topic: ICAO fuel efficiency standards 


Attendees: 

Boeing: 

1. Pete Pagano 

2. Ted Austell 

3. Jenny McIntyre 

GE: 

1. Roger Martella 

2. Michael Fitzpatrick 

3. Neal Kemkar 

4. Darby Becker 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all 
other matters call Robin Kime (202)564-6587. 


Contact: 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005627-00001 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005627-00002 



From: Kime, Robin 

Location: 3513 A 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Call with the Independent Petroleum Association of America: Prep for the Administrator's 5/1 
Meeting: Please call the EPA Polycom (202) 501-1854 
Start Date/Time: Wed 4/26/2017 7:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Wed 4/26/2017 7:30:00 PM 


Attendees: 

Lee Fuller, Samantha McDonald, Susan Ginsberg of IPAA 


Contact: Lee Fuller, Ifuller@ipaa.r3rg 


From: Lee Fuller [mailto:lfuller@ipaa.org ' 

Sent: Friday, April 7, 2017 4:30 PM _ 

To: Bolen, Brittany < bolen.brittany@epa.gov > 

Subject: Regulatory Reform and Other Items 


Brittany, 


I read that one of your assignments is the regulatory reform task force. Consequently, I 
wanted to reach out on some issues of concern. I’ve attached an email that I sent to 
Ryan Jackson that raises several issues that we would like to discuss. (Separately, we 
are trying to arrange a meeting for Barry Russell, IPAA’s President and CEO with 
Administrator Pruitt through Sydney Hupp.) 


Obviously, events are moving quickly. I know that the Administration filed an abeyance 
petition on the Subpart OOOOa litigation today. There is an issue there that is related 
that I’d like to call to your attention. The Subpart OOOOa fugitive emissions program - 
with its costly Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR) requirements - is scheduled to take 
effect on June 3. It would be helpful if this requirement, at least, could be stayed while 
the Subpart 0000 and OOOOa requirements are being reconsidered since a different 
approach might be developed. I know there are other provisions that are already in 
effect that raise similar issues. 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005628-00001 



I also spoke with Dave Rostker from the SBA Advocacy office regarding LDAR in a 
small business context where the issues arises in both the Subpart OOOOa and VOC 
Control Techniques Guidelines context. He suggested reaching out to EPA as well. 


Hopefully, we can discuss these issues soon given your schedule. 


Thanks for your consideration, 


Lee Fuller 


From: Lee Fuller 

Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2017 2:40 PM 

To: Ryan Jackson ( Jackson,Rvan@epa.gov ) < Jackson,Rvan@epa.gov > 

Subject: IPAA Issues at EPA; Possible Meeting 


Ryan, 


I’m reaching out to you but would be happy if you point me to a preferred contact 
person. 


After the recent Energy Executive Order, IPAA would like to discuss a number of 
pending issues with EPA. 


Barry Russell, IPAA’s President and CEO, would like to meet with Administrator Pruitt to 
introduce himself and IPAA. Barry worked for EPA in the 1970s before coming to IPAA. 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005628-00002 



The issues that we’d like to discuss relate to several matters. 


First, EPA’s actions in response to the Energy EO with regard to the methane NSPS 
(Subparts OOOO and 0000a) are most important to IPAA. While currently engaged in 
the litigation opposing the regulations, the pathway to reconsideration and possible 
revision is critical. IPAA wants to be involved as soon as possible and wants to offer its 
cooperation. 


Second, IPAA strongly supports efforts to expand and enhance delegation of regulatory 
authority to states. We are looking for options to be helpful in identifying pathways, 
working with our state cooperating associations to encourage state actions and working 
with Congress if there are barriers that need to be addressed. 


Additionally, following are several other items - mostly directly affecting independent oil 
and natural gas producers - that we would like to identify as issues that we would hope 
EPA could address: 


1. Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) - As a part of the Energy Executive Order, 
EPA is directed to reconsider the oil and natural gas methane New Source 
Performance Standard (NSPS) - Subparts 0000 and 0000a. When the 
Obama Administration proposed the NSPS, it also proposed a CTG for existing 
sources of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) in Ozone nonattainment areas. 

The CTG was finalized in October 2016. It should be suspended or withdrawn until 
the NSPS issues are resolved and determinations can be made on the 
appropriateness of the technology being applied to existing sources. Otherwise, 
the CTG will be applicable in future State Implementation Plans (SIP). 


2. RCRA Subtitle D Consent Decree - EPA agreed to a Consent Decree to settle 
litigation regarding mandatory duties under RCRA Subtitle D related to making 
determinations regarding the appropriateness of state oil and natural gas 
production wastes regulations. EPA has until March 2019 to respond but it should 
act quickly for two reasons. First, EPA’s mandate to act does not require an 
extensive burden and the longer it takes to act, the more state programs appear to 
be viewed as inadequate. Second, the mandatory duties require action every three 
years. Action in 2017 would allow EPA to reconfirm its position in 2020 and 
establish a clear practice for the future. 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005628-00003 



3. Unconventional Oil and Gas (UOG) Extraction Effluent Limitations Guidelines 
(ELG) - EPA finalized UOG Extraction ELG for discharges to Publicly Owned 
Treatment Works (POTW) in June 2016. These ELG should be based on a 
technology standard - Best Available Technology Economically Achievable 
(BATEA). EPA concluded that all discharges to POTW should be prohibited based 
on the availability of underground injection wells and of recycling options. Neither 
of these are BATEA. EPA should not be making zero discharge determinations 
based on its perception of other options. It should determine BATEA 
requirements. If the BATEA requirements are too expensive, it should be the 
dischargers’ choice to use alternative approaches. 


4. Clean Air Act Enforcement Tactics - Over the past several years, EPA’s 
Enforcement tactics have been excessively aggressive. For example, in North 
Dakota where the state did not have delegation of the NSPS program for oil and 
natural gas production, EPA Enforcement initiated direct actions against producers 
with regard to its interpretation of Subpart OOOO requirements for storage 
vessels. This interpretation differed from those EPA technical staff had initially 
indicated. Using its enforcement power, EPA filed proposed penalties against a 
privately held producer that exceeded the value of its assets. The purpose was 
clear and predictable. EPA wanted to use its enforcement power to compel a 
limited asset company to enter into a consent agreement that would require actions 
that met Enforcement’s interpretation of the regulation and to commit to additional 
actions that were beyond EPA Clean Air Act authority to require. Not only did EPA 
use a gap in state delegation to step over North Dakota in its zeal, but these types 
of enforcement tactics reflect poorly on EPA and the federal government and 
should be ended. 


5. Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Revisions - The 2014 
revision to the Ozone NAAQS should be reconsidered. Implementation of the 
2008 revision to the Ozone NAAQS had yet to be implemented and evaluated 
when the 2014 revision was finalized. NAAQS attainment should be the target, not 
promulgating new, unachievable revisions. EPA’s own data showed that the same 
areas it projected to fail to attain the 2008 NAAQS would fail to meet the 2014 
revision. In those areas, the regulatory requirements would not change but the 
2014 revision would bring new areas into nonattainment regulation. Even though 
EPA predicted those new areas would reach the 2014 NAAQS without additional 
local controls, those areas would be subject to new source permitting requirements 
that hamper their economic development. Where there is no compelling health 
benefit from a NAAQS revision - like the 2014 action - EPA should devote 
resources to attainment of the prior standard. 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005628-00004 



Thanks for considering this request. Please let me know how to proceed from here. 


Lee Fuller 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005628-00005 



From: Kime, Robin 

Location: DCRoomARN3500/OPEI 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Energy Star and SNAP Discussion with Appliance Manufacturers 
Start Date/Time: Fri 4/28/2017 7:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Fri 4/28/2017 7:30:00 PM 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your right 
as you exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 20 minutes prior to the meeting 
with photo IDs to clear Security. 


For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all other matters call Robin 
Kime (202)564-6587. 


Meeting proposal: ENERGY STAR is moving a specification on clothes washers, which we 
oppose. It is critical that I ensure you are aware of what is going on and hopefully stop this 
action until we can talk in more detail. While this is an urgent matter, it is also veiy important to 
discuss the ENERGY STAR program broadly. At a high level, we support its moving back to 
DOE for our products and have discussed this with the DOE beachhead team. We have CEOs 
and other senior executives from the entire industry meeting in DC for our Annual Meeting from 
April 29-May 2. It would be very helpful if we could discuss our issues with you before that. 
Any time from Tuesday, April 25, to Friday, April 28 would be ideal. 


Discussion Topics: 

SNAP Rule Allowing Isobutane (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0286) & Rule 21 (bans HFCs for 
refrigerators in 2021) 

Microfibers (Trash-Free Waters) 

Material Management/Landfill Diversion/Food Waste Disposers 
Safe Drink Water 
TSCA Reform Support 
Counterfeit Water Filters 


Attendees: 

Kevin Messner, AHAM SVP of Policy & Government Relations 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005630-00001 



Charlotte Skidmore, AHAM Sr. Dir. of Environment and Sustainability Policy 
Jennifer Cleary, AHAM Sr. Dir. of Regulatory Affairs 


Contact: 

Kevin Messner 

Senior Vice President, Policy & Government Relations 

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers 

1512 Willow Lane, Davis, CA 95616 

1111 19th Street NW, Suite 402, Washington, DC 20036 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005630-00002 



From: Inge, Carolyn 

Location: DCRoomARN3530CFTB/DC-Ariel-Rios-AO 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Meeting with NextEra Energy: Reg Reform 
Categories: Red Category 

Start Date/Time: Mon 5/8/2017 8:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Mon 5/8/2017 8:30:00 PM 


Required: Bolen, Brittany < bolen.brittany@epa.gov >: Jay Cranford cranford@cgen.com ; 
Gunasekara, Mandy < Gupasekara.Mnndy@epa.gov >: Katie Mitchell < mitchell@cgcn.com >; 

Cc: Kime, Robin < Kime.Robin@epa.gov >: Germann, Sandy < Genn.ann.Sandy@epa.gov >: Inge, 
Carolyn < Inge.Carolvn@epa.gov >: Irving, Verna < Irving.Vema@epa.gov > 

Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your right 
as you exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 20 minutes prior to the meeting 
with photo IDs to clear Security. 


For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all other matters call Robin 
Kime (202)564-6587. 


Request: I’m reaching out on behalf of a coalition of companies, including our client NextEra 
Energy, who have aligned on a few specific regulatory reform ideas, including WOTUS, NSR, 
and 316(b). 


Attendees 

Carrie Jenks, Senior Vice President, MJB&A 

Ray Butts, Director of Permitting, NextEra Energy 

Lauren Sher, Senior Manager of Governmental Affairs, NextEra Energy 

Mark Bowles, Director, Environmental Reporting & Climate, Entergy 

A nn Loomis, Director, Federal Public Policy, Dominion 

Melissa Lavinson, Vice President, Federal Affairs and Policy and Chief Sustainability Officer, 
PG&E 

Michelle Barlow, Environmental Policy Specialist, PG&E 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005631-00001 



Contact: 


JAY CRANFORD |CGCN GROUP 

1101 K STREET, NW, SUITE 650 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 
202.689.9296 / cranford@cgcn.com / www,cgcn.com 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005631-00002 




From: Minoli, Kevin 

Location: 4045, 6013, 7500, and 7530 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Adobe Connect link added: OGC Ail Hands Meeting (Call in number: 1-866-299-3188, Code: 
202-564-5551) 

Start Date/Time: Thur 5/4/2017 2:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Thur 5/4/2017 4:00:00 PM 

FY17Q3AJ1 Hands A aenda.pdf 


Hello OGC: 


Anyone connecting to the OGC ALL Hands via Adobe Connect (link below) should not call into 
the 866 audio conference call in number to avoid sound feedback problems. 


We would like to be able to see our remote and teleworking OGC staff on the screen via Adobe 
Connect, so please turn on your video-cameras for this meeting. 


http://epawebconferencinq.acms.com/oqcallhands05042017/ 


OGC Colleagues: The Quarterly All Hands meeting will not be in room 1153 WJC East due to 
the unavailability of video-teleconference or data connections there due to the renovations of the 
room. However, we will stick to the May 4 date to give our invited guests time to prepare and 
certainty on all of our calendars. 


We look forward to introducing our new Deputy General Counsels, as well as, other members of 
the Administrator’s Office team. Also, remember if you have any questions you would like 
addressed by the OGC management team, but are uncomfortable raising them publicly, you 
should feel free to place them in the OGC suggestion box located in the 7 th Floor large pantry. 
Thank you. 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005632-00001 



Regions: Please inform RTP on which room you will be using if connecting via video. Thank 
you. 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005632-00002 



Office of General Counsel (OGC) Quarterly All-Hands Meeting 

May 4, 2017 

10AM-12PM 

AGENDA 


Locations: 

□ WJCN 4045 

□ WJCN 6013 

□ WJCN 7500 

□ WJCN 7530 

□ Telework/Remote via Adobe Connect : 

http://epawebconferencing.acms.com/ogcallhands05042017/ 

Adobe Connect users do not call into the 866 audio conference call in number to avoid sound 
feedback problems. We would like to be able to see our remote and teleworking OGC staff on 
the screen via Adobe Connect, so please turn on your video-cameras for this meeting. 

□ Please use teleconference only if you have technical difficulty connecting to Adobe Connect. 

Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy j 


10:00 GROUND "RULES"/HOW THIS WILL WORK.Rich Albores (in 4045) 

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.Kevin Minoli (in 4045) 

.Else Packard (in 6013) 

10:15: OGC DEPUTY GC REMARKS.Justin Schwab (in 7530) 

.David Fotouhi (in 7500) 

10:30: INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS.(in each conference room) 

.Samantha Dravis, Assoc. Administrator OP.by Kevin Minoli (in 4045) 

.Brittany Bolen, Dep. Assoc. Administrator OP.by Kevin Minoli (in 4045) 

.Byron Brown, Dep. Chief of Staff OA.by Elise Packard (in 6013) 

.Mandy Gunasekara, Senior Advisor.by Justin Schwab (in 7530) 

.Sarah Greenwalt, Senior Advisor.by David Fotouhi (in 7500) 

11:00: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS WITH GUESTS.All. 

11:15 CLOSING REMARKS.Kevin Minoli (in 4045) 


11:20 ADJOURN FOR RiTA's ICE CREAM to celebrate Public Service Recognition Week. .(in 4000) 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005633-00001 


































From: Elam Harden, Sonya 

Location: Conference call: Dial in below 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: S02 attainment in Indiana 

Start Date/Time: Wed 8/9/2017 1:30:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Wed 8/9/2017 2:00:00 PM 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005634-00001 



From: Inge, Carolyn 

Location: 3513 A 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Discussion with Mr. Craig Glidden of GM - Dial 1-855-564-1700; Conf. Ext. 1104438; Code: 

234567 

Start Date/Time: Mon 4/24/2017 7:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Mon 4/24/2017 7:20:00 PM 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005635-00001 



From: Kime, Robin 

Location: DCRoomARN3500/OPEI 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Meeting with ISRI Members to Discuss RCRA Regulatory Reform 
Start Date/Time: Wed 10/25/2017 7:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Wed 10/25/2017 7:30:00 PM 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on 
your right as you exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 10 minutes 
prior to the meeting with photo IDs to clear Security. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all 
other matters call Robin Kime (202)564-6587. 


Request: I wanted to thank you again for making time in your busy schedule to speak at 
ISRI’s recent CEO meeting. The members and staff found your presentation to be very 
helpful and engaging. We appreciate the administration’s willingness to listen to our 
ideas and questions. As a follow up to your presentation, we would like to request a 
brief meeting with you and a small group of ISRI members (and staff). The topic would 
be the crumb rubber issue. To provide a little more background, there are two CEOs 
from the biggest synthetic turf/playground companies, (ISRI members), who would like 
to share their compelling stories with you and get the EPA’s perspective moving 
forward. 


Attendees: Billy Johnson; Kristin Strobel; Robin Wiener; Loren Monroe; William Crozer; 
Chris Bedell, from the David Joseph Company (DJJ) 


Contact: 

Kristin Strobel 
Director of State Affairs 
BGR Government Affairs, LLC 


The Homer Building 
Eleventh Floor South 
601 Thirteenth Street, NW 
Washington, DC 20005 
Direct: (202) 661.6324 




17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005636-00001 



Fax: (202) 833-9392 

kstrobel@bgrdc.com 

www.bqrdc.com 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005636-00002 



From: Inge, Carolyn 

Location: DCRoomARN3500/OPEI 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: RFS Meeting with the National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS) and the Society of 
Independent Gasoline Marketers of America (SIGMA) 

Start Date/Time: Fri 4/28/2017 3:30:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Fri 4/28/2017 4:00:00 PM 


Hi 

Please add this from Samantha’s calendar, thank you. 


Topic: RFS Meeting with the National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS) and the 
Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America (SIGMA) 

Date: 4/28 

Time: 11:30- 12:00 

Location: 3500 WJCN 

Required: tcolum.bus@steptoe.com : Bolen, Brittany < bolen.brittanv@epa.gov >: Gunaselcara, 
Mandy Gimasekara.Mandv@epa.gov : 

Cc: Kime, Robin < Kime.Robin@epa.gov >: Germann, Sandy < Genriann.Sandv@epa.gov > 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your right as you 
exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 20 minutes prior to the meeting with photo 
IDs to clear Security. 


For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all other matters call Robin 
Kime (202)564-6587. 


4 Attendees: 


Two senior executives from 


Timothy Columbus and Eva 


Quik Trip, 
Rigamonti 


including the company’s chief supply officer 
from Steptoe 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005637-00001 












Contact: 


R. Timothy Columbus, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Washington, 
D.C.20036. 

(desk) 202-429-6222; (cell) 202-255-5049, e-mail-—tcolumbus@steptoe.com 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005637-00002 



From: Kime, Robin 

Location: 3500 WJCN 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Meeting with the National Automobile Dealers Association 

Start Date/Time: Thur 9/14/2017 3:30:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Thur 9/14/2017 4:00:00 PM 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your right as you 
exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 10 minutes prior to the meeting with photo 
IDs to clear Security. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all other 
matters call Robin Kime (202)564-6587. 

Purpose: Discuss the regulatory structure for mobile source GHGs. 


Attendees: 

Douglas Greenhaus, NADA regulatory Counsel 
Andrew Koblenz, NADA General Counsel 


POC: 

Douglas Greenhaus 
Chief Regulatory Counsel, 

Environment, Health, and Safety 
National Automobile Dealers Association 

dgreenhaus&.nada.orQ 

o 703.821.7040 
f 703.448.5824 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005638-00001 



8400 Westpark Drive 
Tysons, VA 22102 

nada.org 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005638-00002 



From: Kime, Robin 

Location: DCRoomARN3500/OPEI 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Regulatory Reform Discussion with Rebecca Rosen and Jeff Weiss 
Start Date/Time: Mon 8/7/2017 3:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Mon 8/7/2017 3:30:00 PM 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on 
your right as you exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 10 minutes 
prior to the meeting with photo IDs to clear Security. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all 
other matters call Robin Kime (202)564-6587. 

Attendees: Rebecca Rosen and Jeff Weiss, former Associate Administrator of OIRA under Cass 
Sunstein. 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005639-00001 



From: Inge, Carolyn 

Location: DCR 3530 WJCN 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Meeting with Members of the Trade Association Liaison Council, Manufacturing Action Council, 
and Regulatory Improvement Council - agenda/attendees attached 
Start Date/Time: Tue 5/9/2017 2:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Tue 5/9/2017 2:45:00 PM 

Policy Roundtable with Samantha Dravis.docx 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your right as you 
exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 20 minutes prior to the meeting with photo 
IDs to clear Security. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all other 
matters call Robin Kime (202)564-6587. 


Contact: 

E. Blair Shipp 

Director of Communications 
Valis Associates, LLC 

1101 17 th Street, NW, Suite 608, Washington DC 20036 
(O) 202.393.5055 (C) 703.350.2021 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005640-00001 



Policy Roundtable with Samantha Dravis 
EPA's Office of Policy 
Tuesday, May 9 th at 10AM 
William Jefferson Clinton North 

Agenda: 

Bret Manley, AAR : EPA's proposed denial of petitions to change the RFS Point of Obligation (EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0544) 

Paul Noe, AF&PA: 1) Human Health Water Quality Criteria; (2) Carbon Neutrality of Biomass; (3) Air Permit Streamlining; (4) 
Government Procurement Policies; and (5) Boiler MACT 

Amanda Nguyen & Suzanne Hartigan, IFRA-NA: TSCA, specifically new chemicals review 

Cindy Squires & Joe O'Donnell, IWPA: Formaldehyde Emission Standards for Composite Wood Products regulation 
Rich Bozek, EEI: Waters of the US and Effluent Guidelines 


Attendees: 


David 

Schwietert 

Executive Vice President of Federal and 
Government Relations and Public Policy 

Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

Marie 

Clark 

Counsel, Government Affairs 

American Coatings Association 

MJ 

Carrabba 

Manager, Government and Industry Affairs 

American Composites Manufacturers 
Association 

Paul 

Noe 

Vice President for Public Policy 

American Forestand Paper Association 

Bret 

Manley 

Government Affairs 

Association of American Railroads 

Charlotte 

Skidmore 

Senior Director, Environmental & 

Sustainability Policy 

Association of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers 

Jennifer 

Cleary 

Senior Director, Regulatory Affairs 

Association of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers 

Rich 

Bozek 

Director, Environmental and Health & Safety 
Policy 

Edison Electric Institute 

Amanda 

Nguyen 

Director, Government Affairs & Legal 

IFRANA - the fragrance association 

Suzanne 

Hartigan 

Director of Science & Regulatory Policy 

IFRANA - the fragrance association 

Andrea 

Hart 

General Counsel 

International Bakers Association 

Emily 

Lyons 

Director of Regulatory Affairs and Counsel 

International Dairy Foods Association 

Joe 

O'Donnell 

Director, Government Affairs 

International Wood Products Association 

Cindy 

Squires 

President & CEO 

International Wood Products Association 

Kristine 

Heine 

Consultant 

Kohler 

Rachel 

Jones 

Director of Energy and Resources Policy 

National Association of Manufacturers 

Lorraine 

Gershman 

Vice President, Regulatory Affairs 

National Oilseed Processors Association 

Omar 

Nashashibi 

Government Affairs 

Precision Metalforming Association 

Robert 

Helminiak 

Managing Director of Government Relations 

Society of Chemical Manufacturers & 

Affiliates 

Ed 

Thomas 

Director of Regulatory Affairs 

The Fertilizer Institute 

Dain 

Hansen 

Senior Vice President of Government 

Relations 

The IAPMO Group 

Billy 

Johnson 

Government Affairs 

The Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc 

Kevin 

Koonce 

Vice President of Government Affairs 

The Vinyl Institute 

Wayne 

Valis 

President & CEO 

Valis Associates LLC 

Maura 

Valis 

Vice President 

Valis Associates LLC 

Blair 

Shipp 

Director of Communications 

Valis Associates LLC 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005641-00001 













































































































From: Kime, Robin 

Location: DCRoomARN3500/OPEI 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Meeting with the Agricultural Retailers Association: General Duty Clause [CAA Section 
112(r)(1)] 

Start Date/Time: Fri 12/8/2017 7:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Fri 12/8/2017 7:30:00 PM 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your 
right as you exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 10 minutes prior to 
the meeting with photo IDs to clear Security. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all 
other matters call Robin Kime (202)564-6587. 


Attendees: 

Richard Gupton, Agricultural Retailers Association 

Jennifer Gibson, National Association of Chemical Distributors 

Susan Flanagan, Institute of Makers of Explosives 

Jeff Gunnulfsen, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers 

Peter Lidiak, International Liquid Terminals Association 


Meeting with the Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA), which represents the nation’s 
agricultural retailer and distributors to meet with a group of trade associations to discuss 
the General Duty Clause, as codified in section 112(r)(1) of the Clean Air Act. The trade 
associations that are part of this coalition include ARA, American Fuel & Petrochemical 
Manufacturers, Corn Refiners Association, Institute of Makers of Explosives, 
International Liquid Terminals Association, National Association of Chemical 
Distributors, and National Oilseed Processors Association. 


Contact: 
Richard Gupton 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005642-00001 



Senior Vice President, Public Policy & Counsel 
Agricultural Retailers Association 

Suppliers to America’s Farmers 

1156 15th Street, NW | Suite 500 | Washington, D.C. 20005 
Direct: 202.595.1699 | Main: 202.457.0825 | Fax: 202.457.0864 

richard@aradc.org 

www.aradc.org 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005642-00002 



From: Inge, Carolyn 


Location: 
Importance: 
Subject: BP 
Start Date/Time: 
End Date/Time: 


DCRoomARN3500/OPEI 

Normal 

Mon 4/10/2017 8:30:00 PM 
Mon 4/10/2017 9:00:00 PM 



Would you add this from Samantha’s calendar today please. 


Verna, would you escort them to the conference room please? Thanks! 


Date: Today 
Topic: BP 

Location: 3500 WJCN 

Required: Bolen, Brittany < bolen.brittany@epa.gov >: Gunasekara, Mandy 

Givnasekara.Mandv@epa.gov : Stout, Robert R.obert.Stout@bp.com : mary.streett@bp.com 

Time: 4:30 - 5:00 p.m. 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your right as you 
exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 20 minutes prior to the meeting with photo 
IDs to clear Security. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all other 
matters call Robin Kime (202)564-6587. 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005643-00001 



From: Kime, Robin 

Location: DCRoomARN3500/OPEI 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Meeting with Edward G. Hild: State Permitting for Natural Gas Pipelines when EPA has 404 
Authority 

Start Date/Time: Wed 4/19/2017 7:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Wed 4/19/2017 7:30:00 PM 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your right as you 
exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 20 minutes prior to the meeting with photo 
IDs to clear Security. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all other 
matters call Robin Kime (202)564-6587. 


From: Hild, Edward ["mailto:edward.hi 1 d@hipc.com ' 

Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 2:27 PM 
To: Kime, Robin < Kime■R.obin@epa.gov > 

Subject: RE: Question and Meeting Request -Edward G. Hild 


Hi Robin - thank you so much for the response on behalf of Samantha. I will take the 3:00 PM 
slot. Likely joining me will be two colleagues from Buchanan - Robert Shuster and Terry 
Heubert and Pam Witmer the V.P. for Government Relations at UGI Energy Services. Thanks 
and again for your assistance and patience, as I recently left the Senate after 20 years and am just 
adjusting to life downtown. Ed 


From: Hild, Edward ["mailto:edward.hild@bipc.coml 

Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 9:21 AM 

To: Dravis, Samantha < dravis.samantha@epa.gov > 

Subject: Question and Meeting Request 


Hi Samantha -1 hope this note finds you well. By way of quick background, I most recently 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005644-00001 



served as Senator Murkowski’s Chief of Staff and for a number of years before that with Senator 
Domenici. A couple of questions: 1) does the EPA maintain involvement in the state permitting 
process for natural gas pipelines when EPA has delegated administration of the federal 404 
program - a client is asking and if so would a meeting with the right staff/staffers be appropriate, 
if you are not the correct person? 2) could you please direct me to the appropriate person for a 
meeting on the North American Emission Control Area for Marine Vessels on behalf of a 
different client. Thank you for your time and indulgence. I look forward to hearing from you. 



Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC 

KNOW GREATER PARTNERSHIP 


Edward G. Hild 


Government Relations 


T 202.452.5480 
F 202.452.7989 

edward.hild@bipc.com 


1700 K Street, N.W. 

Suite 300 

Washington, DC 20006-3807 


BiPC.com | Twitter | Linkedin 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005644-00002 



From: Kime, Robin 

Location: DCRoomARN3500/OPEI 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: RFS and RMP Discussion with Brendan Williams of PBF Energy 
Start Date/Time: Wed 4/12/2017 6:30:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Wed 4/12/2017 7:00:00 PM 


POC: Brendan.Wi 11 iams@pbfenergy.com 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your right as you 
exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 20 minutes prior to the meeting with photo 
IDs to clear Security. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all other 
matters call Robin Kime (202)564-6587. 

Brendan W illiams 
Government Relations 
PBF Energy 

601 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Suite 900 South 

Washington, DC 20004 

O: (202) 434-8254 

M: (703) 863-6825 

brendan.williams@pbfenergy.com 

www.pbfenergy.com 





17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005645-00001 





From: Kime, Robin 

Location: 3513A William Jefferson Clinton North 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Meeting with Competitive Enterprise Institute President Kent Lassman 
Start Date/Time: Fri 9/29/2017 6:30:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Fri 9/29/2017 7:00:00 PM 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your 
right as you exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 10 minutes prior to 
the meeting with photo IDs to clear Security. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all 
other matters call Robin Kime (202)564-6587. 


Contact: 

Amanda France 

Executive Assistant, Competitive Enterprise Institute 

Program Manager, 

Producer, /, Whiskey; The Human SQint 

202.331.2764 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005646-00001 



From: Inge, Carolyn 

Location: DCRoomARN3500/OPEI 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Meeting with Larry Schafer - Biodiesel CEOs to Discuss RFS 
Start Date/Time: Thur 4/13/2017 5:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Thur 4/13/2017 5:30:00 PM 


Topic: Meeting with Larry Schafer - Biodiesel CEOs to Discuss RFS 
Date: 4/13 
Time: 1:00 - 1:30 

Location: 3500 WJCN (4 attendees) 


Attendees: 

1. Gene Gebolys, CEO World Energy - 230 million gallons of biodiesel production 

2. Jonathan Phillips, COO and General Counsel at Renewable Biofuels, Inc. - 175 million 
gallons of biodiesel production 

3. Scott Lewis, Executive Vice President, Commercial Operations + Strategy - 110 million 
gallons of biodiesel production 

4. Manning Feraci, President Playmaker Strategies 

5. Anne Steckel, Vice President of Federal Affairs, National Biodiesel Board 

6. Larry Schafer, CEO Playmaker Strategies 


Contact: 

Larry Schafer 
Principal 

Playmaker Strategies, LLC 
750 Ninth St., NW, Suite 650 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005647-00001 



Washington, DC 20001 
Phone: (202)997-8072 
Email: Lschafer@PlaymakerStrategies.com 
Www: www. pi ay m ake r s trate gies.com 


From: Larry Schafer [mailto:lschafer@,playmakerstrategies.com ] 

Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2017 5:22 PM 
To: Bolen, Brittany < bolen.brittanvfa),epa.gov > 

Cc: Manning Feraci < mferaci@,plavmakerstrategies.com > 

Subject: Follow up — Request for Meeting - Biodiesel 


Brittany, 


Hope you are well. 


Trying to set up a meeting with your team for next week on biodiesel issues related to the RFS. 


Any chance we can catch up with your team for a few minutes on Thursday the 13th or Friday 
the 14th? 


I will have at least three biodiesel CEO’s in town at that time and would like to stop by for a 
short introduction. 


Very much appreciated. 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005647-00002 




Thank you. 


« OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap)» 

Larry Schafer 
Principal 

Playmaker Strategies, LLC 

750 Ninth St., NW, Suite 650 

Washington, DC 20001 

Phone: (202)997-8072 

Email: Lschafer@Pl.ay.makerStrategi.es,com 

Www: www.plavmakerstrategies.com 


From: Larry Schafer f mailto:lschafer@plavmakerstrateQies.com' 

Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 2:39 PM 
To: 'jackson.ryan@epa.gov' 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005647-00003 


Cc: 'Manning Feraci - Playmaker Strategies (mferaci@plavmakerstrategies.com V 
Subject: Follow up ~ Request for Meeting - Biodiesel 


Ryan, 


This is a follow up from last week and clearly you are extremely busy. 


Is there any chance we could meet with you or someone on your team to discuss biodiesel issues 
and the renewable fuels program. 


We will be brief and precise - we would like an opportunity to visit about the upcoming 
rulemaking process. 


Thank you. 


« OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) » 

Larry Schafer 
Principal 

Playmaker Strategies, LLC 
750 Ninth St., NW, Suite 650 
Washington, DC 20001 
Phone: (202)997-8072 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005647-00004 



Email: Lschafer@PlaymakerStrategies.com 
Www: www.playmakerstrategies.com 


From: Larry Schafer fmailto:lschafer@plavmakerstrateoies.com' 

Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 5:15 PM 
To: 'jackson.ryan@epa.gov' 

Cc: Manning Feraci - Playmaker Strategies (mferaci@plavmakerstrateqies.com ) 
Subject: Request for Meeting - Biodiesel 


Ryan, 


Larry Schafer here with Playmaker Strategies, we represent a handful of companies that produce 
over 300 million gallons of biodiesel. 


Our clients, Gene Gebolys from World Energy and Scott Lewis from Biox will be in Washington 
DC on Thursday, April 13 and Friday, April 14. 


Mr. Gebolys and Mr. Lewis run well-established biodiesel companies — combined these two 
companies have plants in five states and Canada (Texas, Mississippi, Georgia, Pennsylvania, 
Massachusetts and Ontario) 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005647-00005 



We would like to bring them by for a short meeting to discuss the 2018 Renewable Fuels 
Standards (RFS) and specifically the Advanced Biofuels part of that program. 


Might you have a few minutes to meet on either of those days? 


Please let us know. Thank you. 


We can be reached by email at Lschafer@plavmakerstrategies.com or telephone at 
202.997.8072. 


Larry Schafer 
Principal 

Playmaker Strategies, LLC 

750 Ninth St., NW, Suite 650 

Washington, DC 20001 

Phone: (202)997-8072 

Email: Lschafer@PlavmakerStrategies.com 

W ww: www. pi a v m ake rs trate aies.com 

,v~, r ~~ rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr *f,*~ rrrrrrrrr , rrrrrr( ,<.,.,. r . r ,„.. r ,.,„ r , r , r , r , rrrrr , rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr . rrrrrrrrr /ij„<i 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005647-00006 







17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005647-00007 



From: Kime, Robin 

Location: 3500 WJCN 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Meeting with BP America to Discuss Regulatory Reform 
Start Date/Time: Mon 8/28/2017 6:30:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Mon 8/28/2017 7:00:00 PM 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your 
right as you exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 10 minutes prior to 
the meeting with photo IDs to clear Security. 

EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all 
other matters call Robin Kime (202)564-6587. 

Attendees: 

David J. van Hoogstraten, Senior Director, Regulatory Affairs (Environmental) 

Robert Stout, Vice president and Head of Regulatory Affairs, BP America 
Jim Nolan, Senior Director, Regulatory Affairs, BP America 


Contact: 

David J. van Hoogstraten 

Senior Director, Regulatory Affairs (Environmental) 
BP America Inc. 

1101 New York Avenue, NW 
Washington, DC 20005 
Direct: 202 457 6596 
Mobile: 202 277 5840 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005648-00001 



From: Dominguez, Alexander 

Location: 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (North) - Room 1332 WJCN 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Small Refineries (re: RFS hardship exemption) 

Start Date/Time: Tue 8/15/2017 2:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Tue 8/15/2017 3:00:00 PM 

houseFYISe&wreportlanquaqe.pdf 


Location: 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (North) - Room 1332 WJCN 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your right as 
you exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call 202-564-1016 or 202-578-5985 


Request: 

A coalition of small refineries would like to discuss the RFS hardship exemption. 


Attendees: 

To follow 


Contact: 

Susan Butler 
Capitol Resources LLC 
915 Prince Street 
Alexandria, VA 22314 
(703)739-5860 (office) 
(703)298-2826 (cell) 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005649-00001 



From: Bolen, Brittany 

Location: DCRoomARN3500/OPEI 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Meeting with the Consumers Union re: NGOs Regarding GHG Standards for Vehicles 
Start Date/Time: Tue 8/1/2017 6:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Tue 8/1/2017 6:45:00 PM 

2017.5.30 ERA meeting request.pdf 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your right as you 
exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 10 minutes prior to the meeting with photo 
IDs to clear Security. 

EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all other 
matters call Robin Kime (202)564-6587. 

Attendees: 

Carol Lee Rawn 

Jack Gillis 

Therese Langer 

Shannon Baker-Branstetter 

David Friedman 


Request: Please see attached. A brief meeting to discuss the consumer, investor, and 
economic implications of potential changes to the GHG standards for light-duty vehicles. 

Contact: 

Shannon Baker-Branstetter 

Policy Counsel, Energy and Environment 

Consumers Union, Policy and Action from Consumer Reports 

1101 17th Street, NW, Suite 500 

Washington, DC 20036 

office: 202 . 462.6262 

direct: 202 . 238.9253 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005651-00001 



cell: 5/1.225.d128 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005651-00002 




Consumer Federation of America | 



American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy 


May 30, 2017 





POLICY & ACTION FROM CONSUMER REPORTS 



Ceres 

Sustainability is the bottom line . 


Administrator Scott Pruitt 
Environmental Protection Agency 
Office of the Administrator #1101A 
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 
Washington, DC 20460 


Dear Administrator Pruitt: 


On behalf of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Ceres, Consumer 
Federation of America, and Consumers Union, we request a meeting with you to discuss the 
consumer and economic benefits of light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas standards administered 
by the EPA. 

As you know, the 2017-2025 standards were agreed upon in 2011 by a remarkably diverse 
group of stakeholders. Automakers, suppliers, small business, labor, investor, consumer, 
efficiency, and national security groups, were all represented in the decision-making process. 
Last month, news reports indicated an association representing automakers met with you to 
present its perspective and requests for your agency’s action on the second phase of the 
program for MY 2022-2025. As the mid-term review for the second phase moves forward, our 
groups would also like the opportunity to present our perspectives, research, and data to inform 
the decision-making process prior to the issuance of the determination. 

Greenhouse gas standards for light-duty vehicles are critically important to lowering fuel costs 
for struggling middle class families across the country, have been proven to support job creation 
and innovation, and, of course, improve air quality. Weakening the standards will have a 
damaging impact on the global and national competitiveness of U.S. auto industry, consumer 
welfare, and the American economy at large. 

We look forward to hearing from your office in the near future confirming your interest and 
availability to meet with us. Please contact Shannon Baker-Branstetter at 202-462-6262 or 
sbaker-branstetter@consumer.org. Thank you for your time. 


Sincerely, 

Shannon Baker-Branstetter 
Policy Counsel 
Consumers Union 

Jack Gillis 

Director of Public Affairs 
Consumer Federation of America 


Carol Lee Rawn 
Director of Transportation 
Ceres 

Therese Langer 

Transportation Program Director 
American Council for an Energy-Efficient 
Economy 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005652-00001 








From: Bolen, Brittany 

Location: DCRoomARN3500/OPEI 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Follow-up Meeting with Iron & Steel re: NSR 
Start Date/Time: Mon 8/21/2017 7:30:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Mon 8/21/2017 8:30:00 PM 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your 
right as you exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 10 minutes prior to 
the meeting with photo IDs to clear Security. 

EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all 
other matters call Robin Kime (202)564-6587. 

Objective: Discuss the NSR program. 

Contact: 

Paul Balserak 

Vice President, Environment 
American Iron and Steel Institute 
25 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Suite 800 
Washington, DC 20001 
202 452-7122 (office) 

703 969-1789 (mobile) 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005653-00001 



From: Bolen, Brittany 

Location: DCRoomARN3500/OPEI 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Meeting with Presidents of North America's Building Trades Union and United Association: 
Permitting and Construction of Infrastructure 
Start Date/Time: Wed 8/30/2017 6:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Wed 8/30/2017 6:45:00 PM 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your 
right as you exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 10 minutes prior to 
the meeting with photo IDs to clear Security. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all 
other matters call Robin Kime (202)564-6587. 


Attendees: TBD 


Request: On behalf of the combined 3.5 million members of the United Association (UA) 
and North America’s Building Trade Unions (NABTU), I request the pleasure of a 
meeting with you, President Mark McManus of LIUNA and President Sean McGarvey of 
NABTU on July 5 th 2017. UA and NABTU members care about infrastructure; and that is 
what we would like to discuss with you. Our members often benefit from the good 
paying jobs that are a byproduct of development and deployment of all types of 
infrastructure, from pipelines, to highways and waterways. UA and NABTU have a track 
record of supporting projects that will create union jobs and we maintain an all of the 
above approach to energy development. 

We are particularly enthused to see the department’s efforts to streamline project 
permitting. An acceleration of permitting and construction of infrastructure carries with it 
the potential to create thousands of jobs with extensive economic multiplier effects 
across the United States economy. Specifically we would like to discuss how we work 
together on the Administration’s infrastructure development agenda and share our ideas 
for public policy that will further our mutual goals: jobs and a growing economy. 


Contact: 

Casey O’Shea 

FTI Consulting 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005654-00001 



+1.202.346.8812 T | +1.202.441.6019 M 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005654-00002 



From: Bolen, Brittany 

Location: DCRoomARN3500/OPEI 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Call with Joe Stanko to Discuss Ozone - Call: 1-855-564-1700; Extension: 1104438; 

Participant Code: 234567 

Start Date/Time: Tue 7/25/2017 2:30:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Tue 7/25/2017 3:00:00 PM 


HUNTCW Joseph Stanko 

WILLIAMS 

Partner 



p 202.955.1529 


bio | vCard 


Hunton & Williams LLP 
2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 
Washington, DC 20037 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005655-00001 



From: Kime, Robin 

Location: 3513 A 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Mining Sector Rules 

Start Date/Time: Wed 4/5/2017 3:15:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Wed 4/5/2017 3:45:00 PM 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005656-00001 



From: Kime, Robin 

Location: DCRoomARN3500/OPEI 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Meeting with the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers to Discuss HFCs and the 
SNAP Program 

Start Date/Time: Wed 9/27/2017 5:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Wed 9/27/2017 5:30:00 PM 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on 
your right as you exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 10 minutes 
prior to the meeting with photo IDs to clear Security. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all 
other matters call Robin Kime (202)564-6587. 


Attendees: TBD 


Request: I’m sure you saw the recent court ruling on HFCs and the SNAP program and I know 
you are busier than heck, but it really would be beneficial if I could meet with you on this when I 
am in DC the week of Aug 21. We are already hearing from senior leaders from our appliance 
manufacturers. Can you meet with me to discuss this? I am not expecting any final decisions 
from you at this early stage. I just think we need to understand the possible scenarios and 
possible impacts of each as you weigh your options. I will be meeting with CARB shortly, 
too. PS - also as a heads up we are discussing the likelihood of some of our CEOs coming to DC 
in Sept/Oct to meet with a few key Tmmp Administration leaders, and Administrator Pruitt 
would hopefully be one of those meetings we would be able to coordinate. 


Contact: 

Kevin Messner 

Senior Vice President, Policy & Government Relations 

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers 

1512 Willow Lane, Davis, CA 95616 

1111 19th Street NW, Suite 402, Washington, DC 20036 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005657-00001 



1 202.872.5955 ext. 353 m 530.309.5629 f 202.872.9354 e kmessner@aham.orq 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005657-00002 



From: Dominguez, Alexander 

Location: 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (North) - Room 3528 WJCN 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Meeting - WPX Energy 

Start Date/Time: Wed 7/26/2017 4:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Wed 7/26/2017 4:30:00 PM 


Location: 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (North) - Room 3528 WJCN 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your right as you 
exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call 202-564-1016 or 202-578-5985 


Request: 

Concerned about the QuadOa regulations and affects on WPX Energy’s operations. 

http://www.wpxenergv.com/ 

Attendees: 

Jeff Wilson WPX Energy 
Bill McGrath BHFS 
Luke Johnson BHFS 


Contact: 

William J. McGrath 

Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP 

1155 F Street N.W., Suite 1200 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005658-00001 



Washington, DC 20004 
202.383.4703 tel 

wmcgrath@bhfs.com 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005658-00002 



From: Inge, Carolyn 

Location: DCRoomARN3530CFTB/DC-Ariel-Rios-AO 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Meeting with EEl’s Environmental Leadership CEOs 
Start Date/Time: Thur 4/13/2017 2:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Thur 4/13/2017 2:45:00 PM 



Would you add this from Samantha’s calendar please? Thanks 


Topic: Meeting with EEI’s Environmental Leadership CEOs 


Date: 4/13 


Time: 10:00-10:45 


Location: 3530 WJCN or one of the rooms above it (12 external attendees) 


Required: Bolen, Brittany bolen.brittanv@epa.gov : qshea@eei.org : CTrueheart@eei.org 


Cc: Kime, Robin < Kime.Robin@.epa.gov> : Germann, Sandy < Germann.Sandy@epa.gov >;Inge. 
Carolyn < Inge.Carolvn@epa.gov >; Irving, Verna < Irving.Vema@epa.gov > 


Attendees: 


A ■ Chuck Barlow, Entergy 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005659-00001 



>■ Skiles Boyd, DTE Energy 
>■ Maureen Gannon, PNM Resources 
>■ Jack Ihle, Xcel Energy 
>■ Ann Loomis, Dominion 
>■ John McManus, AEP 
>■ Louis Renjel, Duke Energy 
>■ Usha Turner, OG&E 

>■ Cathy Woollums, Berkshire Hathaway Energy 

>■ Emily Fisher, EEI General Counsel 

> ■ Quin Shea, VP, Environment 

> ■ Kathy Steckelberg, VP, Government Affairs 


Emily Fisher, EEI General Counsel 
Quin Shea, VP, Government Affairs 
Kathy Steckelberg, VP, Government Affairs 


From: Shea, Quin ["mailtoiQShea@eei.org ] 

Sent: Tuesday, April 4, 2017 9:27 AM 

To: Dravis, Samantha < dravis.samantha@epa.gov > 

Subject: RE: Following Up on EEI Board Meeting 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005659-00002 



Good morning Samantha. Recognizing that the overall situation at the agency remains fluid and 
a beehive of activity, I nonetheless trust that you are easing in and fully in control! 


We’ve been communicating regularly with OG&E’s Sean Trauschke, who in turn spoke recently 
with Ryan about scheduling a meeting between the Administrator and EEI’s environmental 
leadership CEOs. We’ll work directly with Ryan on the specifics of that session. In the interim, 
however, these same CEOs are requesting that EEI assemble a small group of their senior 
company staff to come in and meet with you and your colleagues. From our perspective, this 
session would focus on key substantive and process (e.g., permitting and siting) issues, as well as 
the general EPA institutional landscape. When you get a moment, could you call me to discuss 
this item? 


Thanks again for your past courtesies and I look forward to speaking with you soon. Best, Quin 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your right as you 
exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 20 minutes prior to the meeting with photo 
IDs to clear Security. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all other 
matters call Robin Kime (202)564-6587. 


Contact: 

Quinlan J. Shea, III (Quin) 

Vice President, Environment 
Edison Electric Institute 
701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 
Washington, DC 20004 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005659-00003 



202-508-5027 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005659-00004 



From: Gunasekara, Mandy 

Location: 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (North) Please call 202-564-1016 for escort (3528) 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Meeting - Invariant/EPA 

Start Date/Time: Thur 7/20/2017 6:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Thur 7/20/2017 6:45:00 PM 


Location: 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (North) - Room 3528 WJCN 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your right as you 
exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call 202-564-1016 or 202-578-5985 


Request: 

Meeting request as the Administrator is unavailable with Hudson Technologies. 
Montreal Protocol phase outs and allocations, as well as SNAP 

Attendees: 

Kevin Zugibe, President and CEO, Hudson Technologies 
Brian Coleman, COO and Director, Hudson Technologies 
Ben Klein, Invariant 
Kelli Ripp, Invariant 


Contact: 
Kelli Ripp 
Invariant 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005660-00001 



202.742.1925 O 


309.678.2434 M 

ripp@invariantgr.com 

(Heather Podesta + Partners is now Invariant) 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005660-00002 



From: Inge, Carolyn 

Location: DCRoomARN3500/OPEI 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Arconic/CAFE 

Start Date/Time: Thur 4/6/2017 7:30:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Thur 4/6/2017 8:00:00 PM 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your right 
as you exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 20 minutes prior to the meeting 
with photo IDs to clear Security. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all other 
matters call Robin Kime (202)564-6587. 


Hi Russell - 


Thanks for your email. I’m happy to meet with you and the Arconic folks. Carolyn, please work 
with Russell to schedule a time for Samantha and I to meet with them on Thursday. 


Best, 


Brittany 


Brittany Bolen 

Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of Policy 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005661-00001 



From: Thomasson, Russell (WAS-CAS) [ mailto:RThomasson@cassidy.com ] 

Sent: Monday, April 3, 2017 8:49 AM 

To: Bolen, Brittany < bolen.brittanv@,epa.gov > 

Subject: Arconic/CAFE meeting request 


Hi Brittany, I don't think we ever met when we were on the Hill, but I worked for Comyn for a long time until I 
decided to headed to the swamp. Ryan gave me your name and said you were working CAFE issues. We represent 
Arconic (they spun off from Alcoa) which manufactures aluminum parts for the automotive industry. They are a 
$12.5 billion company with 23,000 employees across the United States. They are very interested in the CAFE way 
forward and wanted to come in and give someone their input as major a supplier to the auto industry. Could I bother 
you for a meeting on Thursday, April 6? I would be happy to work around your schedule. It would be me and a 
represenative from Arconic. Thanks for your consideration. Russ 


Russell J. Thomasson 

Executive Vice President 
733 Tenth Street, NW, Suite 400 
Washington, DC 20001 


202.585.2554 (direct) 
202.826.4491 (ceil) 

www.cassidv.com 



This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the intended recipient 
(or authorized to receive this message for the intended recipient), you may not use, copy, disseminate or disclose to 
anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please 
advise the sender by reply e-mail, and delete the message 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005661-00002 





From: Kime, Robin 

Location: 3513 A 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Call with Dennis Hedke - Dial: 316-295-4675 
Start Date/Time: Fri 7/28/2017 5:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Fri 7/28/2017 5:30:00 PM 


Contact: dehed2 <dehed2@gmail.com 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005662-00001 



From: Drue Pearce 

Location: 3500 WJCN 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Mr. Ed Kerr, Armstrong, with Sarah Greenwalt and Samantha Dravis at EPA; accompanied by 
H&H's Kyle Parker and Drue Pearce (tentative) with Kelly Johnson (tentative) Meeting is at 11:15 AM 
Start Date/Time: Thur 3/30/2017 3:15:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Thur 3/30/2017 4:00:00 PM 


Please bring your IDs and enter EPA at the WJC North entrance, to the right of the federal triangle metro 
entrance off 12th street. Ideally allow 10 minutes to clear Security. Have them call 202-564-4332 to be 
escorted to the conference room, 3500 WJC N. 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005663-00001 



From: Kime, Robin 

Location: DCRoomARN3500/OPEI 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Meeting with Brian Jennings, Executive VP of ACE to Discuss Biofuel Priorities 
Start Date/Time: Wed 7/19/2017 7:30:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Wed 7/19/2017 8:00:00 PM 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your right 
as you exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 10 minutes prior to the meeting 
with photo IDs to clear Security. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all other 
matters call Robin Kime (202)564-6587. 


Attendees: 

Brian Jennings, Executive Vice President of the American Coalition of Ethanol 

Jonathon Lehman, Consultant for the American Coalition for Ethanol. 

Request: Brian Jennings, executive vice president of ACE, is going to be in town next week. 

We wanted to touch base and see whether we could pop in and visit with you about ACE biofuel 
priorities given we were able to connect during the ACE fly-in in March. 

Contact: 

Jonathon Lehman <jonathon@americancapitolgroup.com> 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005664-00001 



From: Inge, Carolyn 

Location: DCRoomARN3500/OPEI 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Meet and Greet with the Vinyl Institute 

Start Date/Time: Thur 3/30/2017 4:15:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Thur 3/30/2017 4:30:00 PM 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your right as you 
exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 20 minutes prior to the meeting with photo 
IDs to clear Security. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all other 
matters call Robin Kime (202)564-6587. 


Would you add this from Samantha’s calendar tomorrow please? Thanks 


Topic: Meet and Greet with the Vinyl Institute 


Date: Tomorrow - 3/30 


Time: 12:15-12:30 


Location: 3500 WJCN 


Required: sioIIv@spgdc.com ; Bolen, Brittany bolen.brittaiiY@epa.gov 

Cc: Kime, Robin < Kime.Robin@epa.gov >; Germann, Sandy < Germann.Sandy@epa.gov >;Inge. 
Carolyn <Inge.Carolvn@epa.aov>; Irving, Verna <Irving.Vema@epa.gov> 

y' .. '"V''' .-..-- “4^;^'*"""""""" / 4, ./ / ... 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005665-00001 



Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your right as you 
exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 20 minutes prior to the meeting with photo 
IDs to clear Security. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all other 
matters call Robin Kime (202)564-6587. 


Contact: 

Stuart Jolly 
President 

LTC, US Army (ret) 

Sonoran Policy Group, LLC 
Mobile: 405-514-0514 

sioi . lv@spgdc.com 

http://www.spgdc.com 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005665-00002 



From: Bolen, Brittany 

Location: DCRoomARN3500/OPEI 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Meeting with Tesla to Discuss MTE Process Fuel Economy Standards 
Start Date/Time: Tue 7/25/2017 6:30:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Tue 7/25/2017 7:00:00 PM 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your 
right as you exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 10 minutes prior to 
the meeting with photo IDs to clear Security. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all 
other matters call Robin Kime (202)564-6587. 

Attendees: Joseph Mendelson 


Request: Connecting at the urging of Mandy to discuss the MTE process and all things 
fuel economy/GHG vehicle standards. 


Contact: Joseph Mendelson | Senior Counsel | Policy and Business Development 
601 13 th Street, NW, 9 th FI. N. | Washington, DC 20005 
c 703.244.1724 | e imendelson@tesla.com 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005666-00001 



From: Inge, Carolyn 

Location: 3513 A 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Call w/ Pete Regan Dial In# (712) 770-4010 Access ID:983512 
Start Date/Time: Fri 3/31/2017 2:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Fri 3/31/2017 2:15:00 PM 


Hi Carolyn, 


Here is the information for this Friday’s call at 10am ET with Pete Regan. 
Dial In#: (712) 770-4010 
Access ID: 983512 


Thank you for helping get this set. We appreciate you all. 
Regan 





obertson 



Domestic Energy Producers Alliance 
4124 S Rockford Ave. Ste 201 
Tulsa, OK 74105 
Telephone; 918-233-3921 
rrobertson@depausa.org 

fxssssssssesesssseeessssfxssssmxeessesesf^^ 

www . depa u s a. org 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005668-00001 



-Original Appointment- 

From: Inge, Carolyn [~mailtoiInge.Carolvn@epa.gov ] On Behalf Of dravis.samantha@epa.gov 

Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 7:46 AM 
To: Regan Robertson; Pete Regan 
Cc: Inge, Carolyn; Kime, Robin; Irving, Verna 
Subject: Request for a 10 min Call w/ Pete Regan 

When: Friday, March 31, 2017 10:00 AM-10:30 AM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & 
Canada). 

Where: 3513A 


Hi Regan, 


Thanks for the follow up. Yes, Carolyn please schedule some time for a call. 


I will plan to attend the reception. 


Best, 

Samantha 


From: rrobert s on@depausa.org [mai 1 to:rrohertson@depansa.org' 

Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 2:31 PM 

To: Dravis, Samantha < dra.vis.samantha@epa.gov > 

Cc: Pete Regan < pregan@depau.sa.org >; Inge, Carolyn < Ipge.Carolvn@epa.gov > 

Subject: Request for 5 min Call 


Hi Ms. Dravis! 

Hope you are doing well. I have a couple things for you: 


1. Attached is document Pete Regan provided when you met at EPA on Tuesday, March 7. 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005668-00002 





Pete would like to know if you have time for a brief (5-10 mins) phone call in the next 
couple days in regards to the memo. 


2. General Pruitt is joining DEPA for a small reception next Monday, April 3 at 5:30pm, and 
we would love for you to come by if your schedule permits. We are confirming location 
today and I will share as soon as we do so! 


Thank you so much for your time and I look forward to being in touch. 
Respectfully, 

Regan Robertson 




[obertson 


Domestic Energy Producers Alliance 


S Rockford Ave. Ste 201 


74105 


■: 918-293-3921 


rrobertson(0)depausa.orq 


www.depausa.org 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005668-00003 





17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005668-00004 



From: Kime, Robin 

Location: DCRoomARN3500/OPEI 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Scott Jepsen Vice President of External Affairs for ConocoPhillips Alaska - Call: 1-855-564- 
1700; Extension: 1104438; Participant Code: 234567 
Start Date/Time: Wed 7/19/2017 6:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Wed 7/19/2017 6:30:00 PM 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your 
right as you exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 10 minutes prior to 
the meeting with photo IDs to clear Security. 

EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all 
other matters call Robin Kime (202)564-6587. 

Request: Scott Jepsen will be in town to testify before the House Energy and Minerals 
Subcommittee on Tuesday and I wanted to bring him in to discuss the Small Remote 
Incinerators issue. We have talked a little about this previously and we wanted to follow 
up. Scott is Vice President of External Affairs for ConocoPhillips Alaska and has been 
with the company for a very long time. We would welcome the opportunity to meeting 
with you. 

Attendees: 

In the room: 

Kevin Avery, Federal Government Affairs 
Kjersten Drager, Federal Government Affairs 
Scott Jepsen, V.P. External Affairs, Alaska 


On phone (Alaska): 

David Wulf, Manager, Health, Safety and Environment 
Brad Thomas, New Development Coordinator 
Jon Goltz, Counsel, Alaska (tentative) 


Contact: Kevin J. Avery 

Manager, Federal Government Affairs 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005669-00001 



ConocoPhillips 

325 7 th Street, N.W., 12 th Floor 
Washington, D.C. 20004 
202-833-0914 (Direct) 
202-304-0467 (Mobile) 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005669-00002 



From: Kime, Robin 

Location: DCRoomARN3500/OPEI 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Regulatory Reform Meeting 
Start Date/Time: Tue 8/8/2017 2:30:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Tue 8/8/2017 3:00:00 PM 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005670-00001 



From: Dominguez, Alexander 

Location: Location: 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (North) - Room 1332 WJCN 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Meeting -US Poultry and Egg Association 

Start Date/Time: Tue 7/11/2017 5:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Tue 7/11/2017 5:30:00 PM 

DC Circuit 7-3-17.pdf 


Location: 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (North) - Room 1332 WJCN 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your right as you 
exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call 202-564-1016 or 202-578-5985 


Request: 

Follow up on CERCLA/EPCRA litigation regarding CAFOs air emission court decision 
(Waterkeeper Alliance, et al. v. EPA, No. 09-1017, April 11, 2017). 

One highly pertinent and timely item of which Mandy should be aware is Tuesday's (July 3) DC 
Circuit's denial of the industry's petition for a rehearing of the court's earlier decision on the 
agency's EPCRA/CERCLA reporting exemption. The 1-page order is attached for reference. 

Attendees: 

Paul Bredwell, US Poultry & Egg Association 
Michael Formica, National Pork Producers Council 
Tom Hebert, United Egg Producers 

Christian Richter, US Poultry & Egg Association / National Turkey Federation 
Andrew Walmsley, American Farm Bureau Federation 
Scott Yager, National Cattlemen's Beef Association 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005671-00001 



Jamie Jonker, National Milk Producers Federation 
Lisa Van Doren, National Council of Farmer Cooperatives 

Contact: 

Christian Richter 

U.S. Poultry & Egg Association 

National Turkey Federation 

The Policy Group 
1800 M Street NW 
Suite 400 South 
Washington, DC 20036 
(202) 257-0250 direct 
crichter@thepolicvgroup.com 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005671-00002 



USCA Case #09-1017 Document #1682429 Filed: 07/03/2017 Page 1 of 1 

United States Court of Appeals 

For The District of Columbia Circuit 


September Term, 2016 

EPA-73FR76948 
Filed On: July 3, 2017 

v. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Respondent 


No. 09-1017 


Waterkeeper Alliance, et al., 

Petitioners 


National Chicken Council, et al., 

Intervenors 


Consolidated with 09-1104 

BEFORE: Brown and Srinivasan, Circuit Judges; Williams, Senior Circuit 

Judge 


ORDER 


Upon consideration of the petition of respondent-intervenors National Pork 
Producers Council’s (“NPPC”) and U.S. Poultry & Egg Association’s (“U.S. Poultry”) for 
panel rehearing filed on June 2, 2017; and petitioners’ motion to strike Declaration of 
Timothy R. Gablehouse filed by NPPC and U.S. Poultry in support of their petition for 
rehearing, the opposition thereto, and the reply, it is 

ORDERED that the petition be denied. It is 

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to strike be dismissed as moot. 

Per Curiam 


FOR THE COURT: 

Mark J. Langer, Clerk 

BY: Is/ 

Michael C. McGrail 
Deputy Clerk 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005672-00001 





From: Dominguez, Alexander 

Location: 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (North) - Room 3528 WJCN 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Noble Energy/EPA 

Start Date/Time: Thur 7/20/2017 8:30:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Thur 7/20/2017 9:00:00 PM 


Location: 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (North) - Room 3528 WJCN 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your right as you 
exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call 202-564-1016 or 202-578-5985 


Request: 

Discuss Ozone and OOOOa 


Attendees: 

Bob Bemis, Kate Fay and Chad Calvert - all with Noble Energy. 

Contact: 

Kate Fay 

Manager, Environmental and Regulatory Policy 
Noble Energy, Inc. 

1625 Broadway, Suite 2200 
Denver, Colorado 80202 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005673-00001 



303.910.2830 (cell) 
720.587.2397 (office) 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005673-00002 



From: Dominguez, Alexander 

Location: 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (North) - Room 3528 WJCN 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Meeting - Marathon/EPA (re: Tier 3 Gasoline) 

Start Date/Time: Thur 7/13/2017 1:15:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Thur 7/13/2017 2:00:00 PM 


Location: 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (North) - Room 3528 WJCN 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your right as you 
exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call 202-564-1016 or 202-578-5985 


Request: 

On Thursday, July 13, our Fuels Manager, Fred Walas, will be in Washington D.C. I wanted to 
see if you would be available to meet with us on Thursday morning to discuss Tier 3 gasoline 
and do a 101. 


Attendees: 

Michael Birsic - Government Affairs at Marathon 
Guy Beeman - Government Affairs at Marathon 
Fred Walas - Fuels Technology Manager at Marathon 

Contact: 

Michael Birsic 

Marathon Petroleum Corporation 
1201 F Street, NW, Suite 625 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005674-00001 



Washington, DC 20004 
Direct: 202-442-2459 
Cell: 202-213-2548 
Fax:202-442-2492 

mibirsic@marathonpetroleum.com 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005674-00002 



From: Dominguez, Alexander 

Location: 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (North) - Room 3528 WJCN 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Daimler North America / EPA 

Start Date/Time: Wed 7/5/2017 6:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Wed 7/5/2017 6:30:00 PM 


Location: 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (North) - Room 3528 WJCN 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your right as you 
exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call 202-564-1016 or 202-578-5985 


Request: 

Hi Mandy- 

Hope all is well with you. We were slated to host your boss in a week or so over at our Mercedes- 
Benz USI plant in Alabama, but unfortunately the scheduling kind of unraveled and it’s a no- 
go. Hopefully we find another date down the road! 


In the meantime, I was wondering if you might have some time to meet with me and my 
colleague, Bill Craven who handles regulatory affairs? Bill is really the point person here in DC 
for Mercedes-Benz on all things GHG, Mid-Term Review-related. Was wondering if you have 
some time over the next week or so for a meeting? I know Bill would like to meet you and give 
you an update on our views related to GHG/CAFE issues. 


Attendees: 

To follow 


Contact: 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005675-00001 



Joanna Foust 

General Manager—Federal Affairs 
Daimler North America Corp. 

1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 825 
Washington, DC 20006 
ph: 202^649-4506 
cell: 202-281-9109 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005675-00002 



From: Kime, Robin 

Location: Call Todd at 206-963-3409 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Intro Call with Todd Myers of the Washington Policy Center 
Start Date/Time: Wed 8/23/2017 7:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Wed 8/23/2017 7:30:00 PM 


tmyers@washingtonpolicy.org 


August 10 at 1:30 East Coast/10:30 Pacific. 


Todd Myers 

Environmental Director | Washington Policy Center 
(206) 963-3409 ] tmvers@washingtonpolicv.org 


www.washiiigtoiipolicv.org 


@WAPolicvGreen 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005676-00001 



From: Kime, Robin 

Location: DCRoomARN3500/OPEI 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Meeting with WM Waste Management: Clean Air Act Rules for MSW Landfills 
Start Date/Time: Thur4/13/2017 7:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Thur 4/13/2017 7:45:00 PM 

Letter to EPA Acting Officials - Petition for Reconsideration Enclosed (....pdf 
Landfill Air Rules Summary.docx 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your right 
as you exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 20 minutes prior to the meeting 
with photo IDs to clear Security. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all other 
matters call Robin Kime (202)564-6587. 


Dear Ms. Dravis and Mr. Sugiyama: 


At the suggestion of A1 Collins of Occidental Petroleum (Oxy), who met with you last week and 
now sings your praises, I am writing to request a meeting with you at your earliest convenience 
to discuss a set of mles promulgated by EPA pursuant to Section 111 (b) and (d) of the Clean Air 
Act that impose revised performance standards for both new and existing municipal solid waste 
(MSW) landfills. The regulations were promulgated as part of President Obama’s Climate 
Action Plan: Strategy to Reduce Methane Emissions. 


Waste Management, along with Republic Services, the National Waste & Recycling Association 
and the Solid Waste Association of North America (associations representing both public and 
private organizations and professionals) identified a number of substantial issues of law and 
policy with the new mles, including overlap and conflict with existing mles governing the same 
landfill sources. We have asked EPA to stay, reconsider and revise the two climate-related 
mles. We petitioners have also challenged the new mles in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
D.C. Circuit. 


The landfill mles share similarities with other regulations that EPA may reevaluate, including the 
Clean Power Plan and Oil & Gas Rules: 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005677-00001 



•UUUUUUU The new rule for existing landfills relies on the same Section 111(d) authority for 
which the Clean Power Plan has been criticized; and 

•□□□□□□□ The cost/benefit analyses underpinning the more stringent performance standards in 
the rules rely heavily on the “social cost of methane,” which is derived from the “social cost of 
carbon.” 


Should the Agency decide to rethink those elements in other rules, we believe it would be 
advisable to reconsider the landfill rules as well. Although we petitioners are prepared to move 
forward with the judicial challenge, we believe a reconsideration of the rules could lead to a 
better outcome without the need for litigation. While rule revisions are our ultimate goal, an 
administrative stay of the mles under the Administrative Procedures Act is critical to avoid 
forcing the regulated community and the states to begin implementing these flawed rules. Many 
states are already engaged in developing their mandated state plans for implementation, which 
are due to the EPA by May 30, so our request for a meeting is time-critical. 


I am attaching a recent letter we petitioners sent to EPA prior to Administrator Pruitt’s 
confirmation. It includes our somewhat lengthy administrative petitions. I would be happy to 
follow-up next week by phone to identify a convenient time on your doubtless busy schedules. 
Several participants will be coming from out of town, including a former colleague of Mr. 
Sugiyama, Mack McGuffey of Troutman Sanders, but we can be flexible in accommodating your 
schedules. 


Thank you in advance, and I very much look forward to meeting you. 


Kerry Kelly 


Contact: 

Kerry Kelly KKellv5@wm .com 

Waste Management 

701 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, #590 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005677-00002 





Washington, DC 20004 
202.639.1218 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005677-00003 




National 

Waste & Recycling 
Association** 

Collect. Recycle. Innovate. 



gUIAift 


SOLID WASTE ASSOCIATION 

ol North America 


® 



January 30, 2017 


Via Overnight Mail 
The Honorable Catherine McCabe 
Acting Administrator 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 
Office of the Administrator, Mail Code 1101A 
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. 

Washington, DC 20460 

Kevin Minoli 
Acting General Counsel 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 
Office of General Counsel 
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

WJC North Building, Suite 4000 
Washington, DC 20460 

RE: Pending Petition for Administrative Reconsideration, Rulemaking, and Stay of the 

Landfill New Source Performance Standards and Emission Guidelines 

Dear Ms. McCabe, Ms. Dunham, and Mr. Minoli, 

On October 27, 2016, representatives of the waste management sector (both public and private 
organizations) asked EPA to reconsider, revise, and stay two climate change related rules promulgated 

1682534 l.docx 


Sarah Dunham 

Acting Assistant Administrator 
United States Environmental Protection Agency 
Office of Air and Radiation, Mail Code 6101A 
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20460 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00001 









by EPA pursuant to Section 111 of the Clean Air Act that impose revised performance standards on both 
new and existing municipal solid waste landfills respectively entitled, “Standards of Performance for 
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills," 81 Fed. Reg. 59332-59384 (Aug. 29, 2016), and “Emission Guidelines 
and Compliance Times for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills,'’ 81 Fed. Reg. 59276-59330 (Aug. 29, 2016). 
Both regulations were promulgated as part of President Obama's Climate Action Plan: Strategy to 
Reduce Methane Emissions, 

Because we have not received any response from EPA on the petition to date, and in recognition 
of the recent change in leadership at EPA, we have enclosed the petition for your review. As you will 
note, the petition identifies numerous and substantial questions of law and policy with the new rules, 
including the way the rules overlap and conflict with existing rules governing the source category. 

We also wanted to draw your attention to similarities that these landfill rules share with other 
regulations that EPA may reevaluate, in particular EPA's Clean Power Plan and Oil & Gas Rules. For 
example, the cost-benefit analysis underpinning the landfill rules heavily relies on EPA's "social cost of 
methane" framework (derived from the Agency's "social cost of carbon" framework) that has been the 
subject of much debate and criticism. In addition, EPA's new rule for existing landfills relies on the same 
Section 111(d) authority for which EPA has been heavily criticized in the context of the Clean Power 
Plan. To the extent that EPA decides to discontinue the Agency's use of the "social cost of methane" or 
follows a more restrained interpretation of its Section 111(d) authority, EPA should likewise reconsider 
the landfill rules cited above. 


In addition to filing the enclosed administrative petition with the Agency, the petitioners have 
challenged the new landfill rules in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and the parties will 
shortly need to propose a briefing schedule to the Court. Although the petitioners are prepared to 
proceed with the judicial challenge, we believe that a reconsideration of the rules could lead to an 
appropriate outcome without the need for litigation. Therefore, we request that EPA grant the enclosed 
petition and work with the waste management sector to develop a revised rule. 

As set forth in the enclosed petition, the petitioners request that EPA issue an administrative 
stay of the rules using its authority under the Administrative Procedure Act. Although rule revisions are 
our ultimate goal, a stay is critical to avoid forcing the regulated community and states across the 
country to begin the process of implementing a set of rules that may ultimately change, which would 
result in a significant waste of resources. Such a stay would therefore be a particularly cost-effective 
administrative step, and would also be consistent with the January 20, 2017 directive from Reince 
Priebus, Assistant to the President and White House Chief of Staff, that all agency and department 
heads consider proposing for notice and comment a rule to delay the effectiveness of regulations 
presenting substantial questions of iaw or policy. 


We recognize that many tasks will demand your attention in this time of transition, but hope 
you will recognize the need for swift action in this case. Fortunately, EPA can quickly and easily 
eliminate the time pressure with respect to the landfill performance standards by granting the enclosed 


-2 - 


1682534 l.docx 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00002 



petition. Should you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please contact any of the 
undersigned at your convenience. 


Respectfully submitted, 


M Kevin J, Kraushaar.. ■ . - 

Kevin J. Kraushaar 
4301 Connecticut Avenue NW #300 
Washington, D.C. 20008 
(202) 364-3743 


Counsel for National Waste & Recycling 
Association 



MANKO, GOLD, KATCHER & FOX 
401 City Avenue, Suite 901 
Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania 19004 
(484) 430-2304 


Counsel for Waste Management, Inc. and Waste 
Management Disposal Services of Pennsylvania, 
Inc. 


/si Barry S. Shanoff _ 

Barry S. Shanoff 
1100 Wayne Avenue, Suite 650 
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 
(301) 585-2898 

Counsel for Solid Waste Association of North 
America 


Is/ Carroll W . Mc Gu f f ev III 
Carroll W. McGuffey III 
M. Buck Dixon 
TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP 
600 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 5200 
Atlanta, Georgia 30308 
(404) 885-3698 

Counsel for Republic Services, Inc. 


i 

cc: Justin Heminger (DOJ) 



1682534 l.docx 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00003 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00004 


Petitioners: 


National Waste & Recycling Association, 

Solid Waste Association of North America, 

Republic Services, Inc., 

Waste Management, Inc., and 

Waste Management Disposal Services of Pennsylvania, Inc. 


PETITION FOR RULEMAKING, RECONSIDERATION, 

AND ADMINISTRATIVE STAY 

DOCKET I.D. EPA-HQ-O AR-2003-0215; EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0451 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00005 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 


Introduction *v*w* * **»» 


^ * it ii; ft- # *• # * ff .# •&• £ #• $• :# £ .£ % $ .fc if- #. #• j* *-' M 4* 4: i/> 4 •*. * *;•* #•*• 4 •* ff ■$■ iff. * 4i * .#• 4 * 4 4' •* •»• *: # jjr# 4.4 »:0* : 4 &■ $: ■# % 4 Sfc 4 4 : *.*• 4. 4 A * 4 


* » >y * if, -ft ■*...*•«* *■-»• •*>. 


1 

4 4 4 4 *: JL 


Petitioners"' Background... 
Petition for Rulemaking.., 


i 4 ® 9 4 4 » 9 * » tfe » « •>• ftr- U> »♦ H j i «> * * ik- .*: ftt -4 -l* ?jj; ,4: 4» '.'fi'-it 4.4 it 4 »>.i -4 4 4: 4- .4 ft A .ft A 4- 4 ft- 4 .w- -ft ft 4 4 4 ft 4- ft. v* 4 . 4 .$ .ft. ft $ £ ft .». ft; ft. .g ^ $ 4-i*; .4 4 -yk 4 ft -ft •»• 4-4 4 v». ft . 


;«*»«»« ■»• >4 4 4 *• * t? •* 4 4 4 * * «*«!*#'* *• 4 ■+■ 4k V *•*•*•# «" •*• *' 4 «• ♦- «- « « « 4 « * «••* * 9 -ft » 4 i» 4 4 •#• 9 # * * » « *: W---& * ft * ; m .4 * * ft ft ft *.-..* 4. *4 # .» 


Overlapping Applicability of Old and New Subparts...................5 

Design Plan and Alternatives Approval Process ......................................... .*>*„■*«*»■*>. 11 


The Final Rules Do Not Ensure Agency Review or Approval of 

1^ :<t. . 1,^ ,ti .tLi..,! . (T. fir. . . . It. . . tf if . . I, ^1 If- . . ft ft !£; .■ fi *fc If: ■)!■ (f . . . H Vfi if :j: ;|; ^ ‘t. tf VI .1 ti .... 'll, . . .. . f,'. it (, ff jy jt tt. i, t- 


!• 4- » « lir 4 4- 4 *■ 4-4-4 « iff• •*• 


12 

I„ 


2. The Final Rules Provide no Clarity on Whether Landfills Must Proceed with 
GGCS Installation in the Absence of Agency Approval................................... 14 

3. EFA/s .Design Plan Approval Process Subjects Affected Facilities 

to Unclear Compliance Obligations and Untenable Financial and 
Enforcement 15 

4. EPA Must Correct the Rules to Require Affirmative Agency Approval in 

a Timely Maimer..17 


C. Non-Producing Areas, 


1 R 

f 4 4 4 ♦ ff iff fi ~4* it k 'ft # t ♦ #• 'ff - ft ff # # S- * ft- ♦ ft* 9- ft ff if- K ff ♦ -ft : ii itr ft- Hi ft ff ii ff- ff* *. A -ft- Iff ft ft A ft -iff ff % « .ff. 4ft ff- ii * *: ft -ff'ffi t* * ff ^ i ; t ft -ft. « ^ ^ 1 


L The Final Rules Should Allow for the Capping, Removing, and 
Decommissioning of GCCS From Non-Producing Areas of Active 

lc^ ^ 1 ^ . f . -ft H ttt (f . ttt . h . . J|t . . . . . . . . . . . ft, . . . . |t . yi . . . .... .. ^ tj: -JJ, ^ . '.-"-ft . .. j. ^ .-jjf .-j,. j ^ 

2. EPA’s Definition of “Closed Area” Is Needlessly Narrow...20 

3. The Final Rules Should Allow for Surface Emission Monitoring to 

Support Removal or Decommissioning of a GCCS ....22 

EPA Should Adopt a Clear Definition of Cover Penetrations...24 


IV. Petition for Reconsideration 


• $>: $ <$ "& 4 » if: vifc % & * $-. 1 $: -ft. -hi. 06 k $■ -H: a- •« 4 Ift-ji: ■$. v» : :*•- .^- «• •# ^ ^ =#• #- 4 ff- jk- * ^ j».- : ; 


► iff ft #r-f- iff- It *• * ft * *-♦. » #. ♦, <t.«- 4« 4 tff :* * * 26 


A. Tier 4.... 


* »■ *■ *« )•>•»'« * »••» •* » * •-*'** •*«* * »'*«♦*** » *••»•«•*♦•* *■».***.*.* * * *'**.*•** ... »■»«*. «ft « « • ft 'ft* ft •'«. V# »;«ft * ft • »'*#* ft* **# # »V* **'-# »« #’-i 


Tier 4 Should Not Be Limited to Landfills With Modeled NMOC 
Emission Rates Between 34-50 Mg/year..... 

New Wind-Related Restrictions On Tier 4 Monitoring Are Unsupported 

a. Lack of Scientific Basis for Wind-Speed Restrictions. 

b. Wind-Speed Restrictions Are Unduly Burdensome......................... 

F ^ .jf. mV jj; :t| jf, jy, #/. .■ f ... t; i)j tfi, t 1 ,-, : Ji if t ,J : V. if. ^ ft, 'litVl' wt yt. w ^ tyy, It It; y, y. tl . yj ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ .y . tit 


« li !f 6 9 6 ® (i (f il f) (} ft « « 


£ ft; ft' iff •*• ft- W ftl 'ft- «: »• .# ft- -ft «!' 


... 37 


a. Tier 4 Monitoring Procedures Should Include Corrective Action............ 37 

b. The Final Rules Should Be Clarified to Address When Lan dfill s 


Are Permitted to Use Tier 4 




.. 40 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00006 























D 
13 * 


c. 


d. The Final Rules Should Clarify the Process for Submitting 

A nn ual Tier 4 Surface Emission Report............ 41 

e. Tier 4 Recordkeeping Requirements Should Be Reduced...i,.,..,............,. 42 

f. EPA Failed to Consider the Costs Associated With Tier 4 43 


Liquids Addition Reporting... . 


•••* if '■» iff? *• *• # $ «• # *■' #• -4 i*-: * $• hfr 


44 

* :# *• * * ■ * 


1. Annual Reporting Requirement is Unduly Burdensome. 

2. The Final Rules Should Not Include a Reporting Obligation That 

is Unrelated to Any Compliance Obligation. 




Corrective Action Timeline Procedures 


>■* *■ *: * :* * <$■ « * *'■» #■•*•»******» 


V, Petition for Administrative Stay of the Final Rules Pending Judicial Review *•.*•*♦<*-..52 

Appendix A 


«11 * 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00007 











I. Introduction 

On August 29, 2016, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA” or “Agency”) 
promulgated final rales entitled, Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, 
81 Fed. Reg. 59332-59384 (Aug. 29, 2016) (“Subpart XXX”), and Emission Guidelines and 
Compliance Times for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, 81 Fed. Reg. 59276-59330 (Aug. 29, 
2016) (“Subpart Cf”) (collectively referred to as the “Final Rules”). Prior to publication of the 
Final Rules, EPA issued the following notices of proposed rulemaking: Standards of 
Performance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, 79 Fed. Reg. 41795-41843 (July 17, 2014) 
and Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills; Advanced 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 79 Fed. Reg. 41771-41793 (July 17, 2014) (collectively referred 
to as “2014 Proposal”). A year later, EPA issued supplemental proposals, entitled Standards of 
Performance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, 80 Fed. Reg. 52162-52168 (Aug. 27, 2015) 
and Emission Guidelines, Compliance Times, and Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid 
Waste Landfills; Proposed Rule, 80 Fed. Reg. 52100-52162 (Aug. 27, 2016) (collectively 
referred to as “2015 Supplemental Proposal”). The Final Rules are intended to update existing 
rales regulating municipal solid waste (“MSW”) landfills - the Standards of Performance for 
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills at 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart WWW (“Subpart WWW”) and 
the Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills at 40 
C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart Cc (“Subpart Cc”). 

Pursuant to Section 553(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. 

§ 553(e), the National Waste & Recycling Association, the Solid Waste Association of North 
America, Republic Services, Inc., Waste Management, Inc., and Waste Management Disposal 
Services of Pennsylvania, Inc. (collectively referred to as “Petitioners”) request that EPA 

1 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00008 





immediately undertake a rulemaking to revise the Final Rules, as farther specified in Section III, 
below. Additionally, pursuant to Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 

§ 7607(d)(7)(B) (“CAA” or “Act”), Petitioners request that EPA reconsider certain aspects of the 
Final Rules, as set forth in Section IV, below. Finally, Petitioners request that EPA immediately 
grant Petitioners’ request for administrative stay of the Final Rules, as more fully detailed in 
Section V, below, in order to suspend the effectiveness of the Final Rules and to allow the 
Agency time to correct the significant substantive and procedural flaws identified in this Petition. 
II. Petitioners’ Background 

The National Waste & Recycling Association (“NWRA”) is a trade association that 
represents private-sector waste an d recycling companies in the United States, and manufacturers 
and service providers who do business with those companies. NWRA’s members operate in all 
50 states and the District of Columbia. NWRA provides leadership, education, research, 
advocacy, and safety expertise to promote North American waste and recycling industries, serve 
as their voice, and create a climate where members prosper and provide safe, economically 
sustainable, and environmentally sound services. 

The Solid Waste Association of North America (“SWANA”) is a California nonprofit 
public benefit corporation. Its membership includes more than 8,500 public and private sector 
professionals committed to advancing from solid waste management to resource management 
through their shared emphasis on education, advocacy and research. For more than 50 years, 
SWANA has been the leading professional association in the solid waste management field. 


2 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00009 







1 

Republic Services, Inc. 1 (“Republic”) serves residential, municipal, commercial, and 
industrial customers nationwide and is dedicated to providing dependable solutions for recycling 
and waste challenges. Republic provides reliable service through 340 collection operations, 201 
transfer stations, 193 active landfills, 67 recycling centers, eight treatment, recovery and disposal 
facilities, 12 salt water disposal wells, and 69 landfill gas and renewable energy projects across 
41 states and Puerto Rico. Republic maintains approximately 125 closed MSW landfills. 
Republic is a holding company and all operations are conducted by its subsidiaries. 

Waste Management, Inc. 2 (“WM”) is North America’s leading provider of integrated 
waste management and environmental solutions. Through its network of subsidiaries, including 
Waste Management Disposal Services of Pennsylvania, Inc., WM operates 244 active, solid 
waste landfills, and at 136 of them, operates beneficial landfill-gas-to energy (“LFGTE”) 
projects. These projects produce renewable electricity, renewable fuel for stationary facilities, 
and renewable transportation fuel for vehicles, including about 1000 of WM’s own refuse 
collection trucks. WM maintains approximately 200 closed MSW landfills. 

Petitioners have engaged with EPA during the rulemaking period and submitted 
comments on both the 2014 Proposal and 2015 Supplemental Proposal. See NWRA & SWANA, 
Comments on 2014 Proposal, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215-0108 & EPA-HQ-OAR- 
2014-0451-0062 (“NWRA & SWANA 2014 Comments”); NWRA & SWANA, Comments on 
2015 Supplemental Proposal, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215-0196 & EPA-HQ-OAR- 
2014-0451-0186 (“NWRA & SWANA 2015 Comments”); Republic Services, Comments on 

' Republic Services, Inc. is a holding company and all operations are conducted by its wholly-owned and majority- 
owned subsidiaries. This Petition is being filed by Republic Services, Inc. on behalf of these consolidated 
subsidiaries (collectively “Republic”). 

" Waste Management, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, is a holding company and all operations are conducted by its 
wholly-owned and majority-owned subsidiaries. This Petition is being filed by Waste Management, Inc. on behalf 
of these consolidated subsidiaries (collectively “Waste Management” or “WM”). 

3 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00010 


Proposed Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, Docket ID EPA-HQ- 
OAR-2003-0215-0099 (“Republic 2014 NSPS Comments”); Republic Services, Comments on 
Supplemental Proposal — Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, Docket 
ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215-0202 (“Republic 2015 NSPS Comments”); Republic Services, 
Comments on the Advanced Notice of Proposed Ruling Making for Emission Guidelines and 
Compliance Times for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, Docket ID EP A-HQ-0AR-2014-0451 - 
0061 (“Republic 2014 EG Comments”); Republic Services, Comments on Proposed Rules; 
Emission Guidelines, Compliance Times, and Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid 
Waste Landfills, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0451-0176 (“Republic 2015 EG Comments”); 
Waste Management, Inc., Comments on 2014 Proposal, Docket ID EPA-HQ-0AR-2003-0215- 
0100 & (“WM 2014 Comments”); Waste Management, Inc., Comments on 2015 Supplemental 
Proposal, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215-0198 & EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0451-0192 (“WM 
2015 Comments”). Additionally, WM, Republic, and other industry stakeholders have provided 
supplemental information relating to implementation of Subparts WWW and Cc, which can be 
found in the docket for Subpart XXX at the following Docket ID numbers: EPA-HQ-OAR- 
2003-0215-0003, EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215-0007, EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215-0053, EPA-HQ- 
OAR-2003-0215-0055, EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215-0057, EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215-0058. 

III. Petition for Rulemaking 

Petitioners ask EPA to initiate rulemaking to address certain aspects of EPA’s Final 

a 

Rules that were raised in comments at proposal. Under Section 553(e) of the APA, any party can 
ask any agency to issue, amend, or repeal a rule. 5 U.S.C. § 553(e). Although Section 307(d) of 
the CAA states that Section 553 of the APA shall not apply to the promulgation or revision of 


4 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00011 


most nationally-applicable CAA rules, including NSPS or EG rales/ the federal courts continue 
to recognize the right of the public to petition EPA for rulemaking under the CAA. 4 

The Petitioners recognize that the federal courts’ authority to review EPA decisions on 
whether to grant or deny petitions for rulemaking is “extremely limited and highly deferential.” 
See WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, 751 F.3d 649 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (denying a challenge to EPA’s 
decision to deny a petition for rulemaking under Section 111 on the basis of ongoing budget 
uncertainties and limited resources). Nevertheless, Petitioners believe that the Final Rules are 
fundamentally flawed, are inconsistent with the structure and purpose of Section 111 of the 
CAA, and therefore warrant revision. Accordingly, Petitioners submit this petition for 
rulemaking in the hope that EPA will recognize that numerous flaws remain unaddressed, despite 
timely comments raising those concerns, and initiate a rulemaking process to address them. 

Since Petitioners believe that the issues for which rul emaking is requested below can be more 
folly vetted through an official notice and comment rulemaking process, the issues are described 
here only in general terms. Petitioners look forward to providing greater detail and proposed 
solutions for the concerns identified below during the rulemaking process. Nevertheless, 
because Petitioners did comment on the issues identified in this Section III during the rulemaking 
process for the Final Rule, such issues are also ripe for judicial review. 42 U.S.C. § 307(d). 

A. Overlapping Applicability of Old and New Subparts 

In promulgating the Final Rules, the Agency has created an unintelligible web of 

standards that apply to MSW landfills in contravention of Section 111, consisting of: (1) old 

3 42 U.S.C. § 307(d). 

4 Massachusetts v. EPA, 415 F.3d 50, 53 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (noting that Section 307 authorizes judicial review of 
EPA’s decision to deny a petition for rulemaking), rev'd and remanded on other grounds by 549 U.S. 497, 527 
(2007) (referring to the filing of a petition for rulemaking under the CAA as “procedural right” and confirming that 
the denial of such a petition may be addressed via judicial review under Section 307). Accord Friends of the Earth 
v. EPA, 934 F. Supp.2d 40, 54 (D.D.C. 2013) (“EPA is required to respond to a citizen petition for rulemaking.”) 
(citing Massachusetts v. EPA). 

5 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00012 






Subparts WWW and Cc, which have not been expressly superseded; (2) 40 C.F.R. Part. 63, 
Subpart AAAA (“the Landfill NESHAP” or “Subpart AAAA”), which continues to rely on 
Subparts WWW and Cc for its substantive compliance obligations; and (3) new Subparts XXX 
and Cf, which were intended to update the standards for landfills but were adopted as free¬ 
standing and separate subparts. 

Despite many comments asking EPA to address the potential overlap among its old rules, 
the new rules, and the Landfill NESHAP (which requires compliance with Subparts WWW and 
Cc), EPA did not address that critical concern. For example, WM’s comments expressly asked 
“how EPA’s proposal to correct and clarify the regulatory language based on Subpart WWW 
would affect Subpart WWW itself, and importantly, compliance obligations for existing 
facilities.” WM 2014 Comments at 3-4. Republic similarly commented that “EPA must also 
address the compliance obligations that may result for sites that must transition from Subpart 
WWW to Subpart XXX following a modification.” Republic 2015 EG Comments at 33. Both 
companies also co mm ented that the decision to adopt entirely separate subparts for the revised 
rules (Subparts XXX and Cf) ignores the fact that the Landfill NESHAP continues to require 
compliance with the old subparts (Subparts WWW and Cc). WM 2015 Comments at 70; 
Republic 2015 EG Comments at 33. 

Despite these comments, EPA adopted applicability provisions in its new subparts that 
fail to take into account the applicability provisions of the old subparts and the Landfill 
NESHAP, which EPA did not revise. EPA acknowledges that the Agency could have 
accomplished the updates to Subparts WWW and Cc merely by updating those old subparts. See 
81 Fed. Reg. at 59333, FN 3. Such a decision would have avoided the confusion that has 
resulted. Nevertheless, the Agency decided instead to forge a more complicated path by 


6 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00013 





updating Subparts WWW and Cc via promulgation of two new and separate subparts. As a 
result, the applicability provisions for all five rules—the old and new NSPS and EG and the 
Landfill NESHAP—are now codified as follows: 


« 


Subpart Cc: 
Subpart WWW: 
Subpart Cf: 
Subpart XXX: 
Subpart AAA A: 


landfills constructed / modified “before May 30, 1991” 5 
landfills constructed / modified “on or after May 30, 1991” 6 
landfills constructed / modified “on or before July 17, 2014’ -7 
landfills constructed / modified “after July 17, 2014” 8 
requiring landfills that are major sources or area sources meetin 
certain design capacity thresholds to comply with WWW or Cc' 


Because of the overlapping applicability provisions, a landfill will necessarily meet the 


applicability criteria of more than one subpart, as illustrated in the table provided below: 


; Lanilils that were last 

before May 30, 1991 


| Cc (old) 

'• . 

X 

.SiMi§ 

' rt-,- ■' .A 

X 

■ . ; 


iiifii 

...on or between 

May 30, 1991 & July 17, 2014 

[ 

L . 2 

y x y 

X 


1 after July 17, 2014 j 


X 

I 1 

; x yy 


This overlapping applicability is unreasonable because on their face the rules would 


require landfills to simultaneously comply with different and overlapping provisions from either 
the new or old subparts, forcing Petitioners to engage in two different sets of activities to ensure 
compliance with the new and old rules. In doing so, EPA is forcing landfills to meet all 
provisions of the Final Rules without allowing landfills to benefit from the regulatory provisions 
that EPA intended to update and streamline, since the old rules will still apply. As just one 

5 40 C.F.R. § 60.32c. 

5 40 C.F.R. § 60.750. 

7 40 C.F.R. § 60.31f. 

8 40 C.F.R. § 60.760. 

9 40 C.F.R. §§ 63.1935; 63.1955. 


7 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00014 






















example, EPA eliminated the wellhead oxygen parameter as a basis for requiring corrective 
action in Subparts XXX and Cf, but Subparts WWW and Cc—one of which will still apply to all 
landfills—will continue to require all landfills to take corrective action for oxygen exceedances. 

The overlapping applicability provisions contravene the CAA because they have the 
effect of simultaneously regulating some landfills as both “new” landfills subject to a NSPS and 
“existing” landfills subject to an EG. That result is prohibited by the CAA, which defines the 
two terms “new source” and “existing source” in mutually exclusive fashion and establishes 
separate programs for “new” and “existing” sources—Section 111(b) for new sources, and 
Section 111(d) for existing sources. Given that the definition of “existing source” is “any 
stationary source other than a new source,” a single source cannot be regulated simultaneously 
as both a “new source” under a Section 111(b) NSPS and an “existing source” under a Section 
111(d) EG. 42 U.S.C. § 7411(a)(6). But that is exactly the result of EPA’s failure to properly 
address the overlapping applicability of its old and new NSPS and EG for some landfills, as 
illustrated above. 

Likewise, EPA failed to address the fact that the Landfill NESHAP still requires 
compliance with the substantive obligations of Subparts WWW and Cc. Despite many 
comments identifying the inconsistency between the proposed rules and the Landfill NESHAP, 
EPA completely failed to address these comments in the Final Rules. 

EPA’s own statements confirm that the Agency did not intend for landfills to comply 
with both the old and new rules simultaneously. The most obvious indication of EPA’s intent 
with the Final Rules is EPA’s description of them as a “revision,” “update,” or “changes” to the 
old rules. See e.g., 81 Fed. Reg. at 59276 (“Based on this review, the EPA has determined that it 
is appropriate to revise the Emission Guidelines . . .”). Even more explicitly, the preambles 


8 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00015 




explain that EPA believes “the most appropriate way to proceed is to establish a new subpart that 
includes both the verbatim restatement of certain provisions in the existing Emission Guidelines 
ana revisions to, or the addition of, other provisionsId. at 59286. This statement confirms 
that EPA dia not intend for all provisions of Subpart WWW and Cc to continue to apply as 
currently written, but EPA’s Final Rules do not reflect that intent. EPA even justified its 
decision to revise Subparts WWW & Cc by quoting Supreme Court precedent holding that 
“[rjegulatory agencies do not establish rules of conduct to last forever,” even though EPA has 
failed in this instance to adopt any language to terminate the effectiveness of such standards. Id. 
at 59277 (citing Am. Trucking Ass’n v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry., 387 U.S. 397, 416 
(1967)). 

EPA’s failure to enact appropriate applicability provisions in its Final Rules renders them 
unlike any other NSPS revision that EPA has ever adopted. All of the other NSPS revisions that 
EPA has adopted make clear that only one NSPS subpart should apply at a time (and EPA has 
never before revised an EG). For example, when EPA adopted a new standard for stationary 
combustion turbines in Subpart KKKK, EPA confirmed that sources subject to the new Subpart 
KKKK provisions would be “exempt” from the provisions of Subpart GG. 40 C.F.R. § 60.4305 
(“Stationary combustion turbines regulated under this subpart [KKKK] are exempt from the 
requirements of subpart GG of this part.”). Similarly, after EPA adopted a new standard in 
Subpart Da for fossil fuel-fired steam generators, EPA revised the old Subpart D to make clear 
that any facility subject to the new standard “is not subject” to the old standard. 40 C.F.R. § 

60.40 (“Any facility subject to ... subpart Da ... of this part is not subject to this subpart.”). 
Many other subparts contain language of similar effect to avoid the overlap of old and newly 
revised standards. See, e.g., 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subparts Ea, Eb, K, Ka, Kb, AA, AAa, J, Ja, VV, 


9 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00016 


VVa, GGG, GGGa, AAAA, BBBB, CCCC, DDDD, EEEE, FFFF. The only instance of EPA 
adopting a new subpart without expressly addressing the applicability of an old subpart that 
Petitioners were able to identify is Subpart TTTT, in which EPA adopted standards for electric 
generating units, but in that case no overlap occurred because Subpart TTTT only regulates an 
entirely new pollutant—greenhouse gas emissions—that was not covered by the preexisting 
standards. 

EPA’s error in failing to address the overlapping applicability of the Final Rules, 

Subparts WWW and Cc, and the Landfill NESHAP requires an additional rulemaking action. 

Only through further revisions to its regulations can EPA make sufficiently clear that only the 

newly “revised” and “updated” versions of the regulations apply, as EPA originally intended. In 

* 

the case of the Landfill NESHAP, EPA must acknowledge that compliance with the Final Rules 
satisfies the sections of Subpart AAAA that currently reference Subparts WWW and Cc. When 
EPA promulgated the Landfill NESHAP, the Agency concluded that substantive provisions of 
Subparts WWW and Cc were the appropriate basis for the rule’s MACT standard. Having now 
updated Subparts WWW and Cc via promulgation of the Final Rules, the Agency must carry 
through such updates to the Landfill NESHAP. 

Certainly, if a State adopts a Section 111(d) plan for implementing the EG that confirms 
compliance with the new EG satisfies the old EG, and EPA approves that plan, the State may be 
able to resolve this overlapping applicability concern for landfills subject only to the old and new 
EG (i.e., those constructed and last modified prior to May 30, 1991). However, Section 111(b) 
does not authorize States to revise the applicability provisions of the standards that EPA has 
adopted for new sources. Therefore, States will not have the authority to resolve the 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00017 



applicability concerns for any landfill subject to Subpart WWW, XXX, or both (i.e,, those 
constructed and last modified on or after May 30, 1991). 

When EPA initiates a rulemaking process to resolve the overlapping applicability of 
Subparts XXX, WWW, Cf, and Cc, and the Landfill NESHAP, EPA must also address the 
process by which a landfill transitions from the old rales to the new. Again, despite numerous 
comments requesting that EPA address the procedures and timing for transitioning to the 
compliance obligations of the Final Rules, EPA simply failed to respond. See WM 2014 
Comments at 3-4; Republic 2015 EG Comments at 33. Asa result, states and regulated entities 
are left without any direction on how to implement the new rales once they take effect. Landfills 
will need some time to make the changes that the Final Rules require, so a transition policy 
should allow a reasonable amount of time for achieving compliance. 

Thus, Petitioners respectfully ask EPA to convene a notice-and-co mm ent rulemaking 
action to address this overlapping applicability concern through rale revisions, accompanied by 
provisions that allow a reasonable time period for compliance with the new requirements. 

B. Design Plan and Alternatives Approval Process 

The Final Rules contain numerous and conflicting provisions addressing the need for 
submittal and approval of landfill gas collection and control system (“GCCS”) design plans, the 
obligation to operate in accordance with an approved design plan, and the potential enforcement 
risk for facilities that have not yet received approval of their design plan. Petitioners request that 
the Agency initiate a rulemaking intended to provide greater clarity for compliance obligations 
related to the design plan approval process. 

Under Subparts WWW and Cc, Petitioners have experienced a very low rate of agency 
review and approval of design plans, including alternatives to the design standards and operating 
parameters, leaving many facilities without any certainty as to whether the design plan 

11 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00018 


requirements have been met or whether their alternatives are appropriate. At proposal, EPA 
solicited comments on streamlining the design plan approval process. Petitioners urged EPA to 
clarify and streamline these requirements, recommending that the Agency (1) establish a defined 
timeline for review and approval or denial of design plan submittals; and (2) establish a process 
for automatic approval should the Administrator or delegated authority fail to respond within the 
established deadline. As an alternative, Petitioners urged EPA to reexamine the need for an 
affirmative approval of design plans in general, noting that many EPA rules do not require 
approval of similar types of conceptual plans. See WM 2014 Co mm ents at 30-35. In 
supplemental comments submitted to EPA, Petitioners provided numerous examples of EPA 
rules that do not require agency approval of analogous plans. A copy of Petitioners’ 

JA 

Supplemental Comments is attached hereto at Appendix “A”. (Note that these comments were 
provided at EPA’s request.) In the Final Rules, EPA did not address Petitioners’ comments and 
instead worsened the compliance uncertainty associated with GCCS design plan review and 
approval. Thus, Petitioners request that the Agency initiate a rulemaking, respond to Petitioners’ 
comments, and provide greater clarity around compliance obligations related to the design plan 
approval process. 

1. The Final Rules Do Not Ensure Agency Review or Approval of Design 
Plans 

In the Final Rules, EPA definitively stated that agency approval of GCCS design plans is 
required. See 40 C.F.R. § 60.762(b)(2)(i) and 40 C.F.R. § 60.767(c)(4). Yet, having established 
in the Final Rules that design plans must be submitted for approval, EPA’s approval process fails 
to ensure that the Agency will ever review submitted design plans, let alone approve them. 

| A 

Petitioners note that EPA has failed to include the Supplemental Comments in Appendix A in the dockets for the 
Final Rules, despite requesting that Petitioners submit them. Petitioners have attached the Supplemental Comments 
to this Petition for the Agency’s ease of review. 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00019 




Specifically, section 60.767(c)(5) requires “[t]he landfill owner/operator to notify the 
Administrator that the design plan is completed and submit a copy of the plan’s signature page. 
The Administrator has 90 days to decide whether the actual design plan should be submitted for 
review. If the Administrator chooses to review the plan, the approval process continues as 
described in (c)(6) of this section.” The section thus leaves entirely to the discretion of EPA or 
delegated authority whether to review any submitted design plan. Section 60.767(c)(6) creates 
even more confusion as it consists of two contradictory sentences. The first requires that the 
Administrator, upon receipt of an initial or revised design plan, “[mjust review information 
submitted ... and either approve it, disapprove it, or request additional information.” But the 
second sentence then imposes an unacceptable enforcement risk on the landfill owner/operator in 
the event that “the Administrator indicates that submission is not required, or does not respond 
within 90 days,” by stating that “the landfill owner/operator can continue to implement the plan 
with the recognition that the owner/operator is proceeding at their own risk.” The same 
paradoxical provisions are reflected in Subpart Cf in Section 60.38f(d)(5) and (6). 

Notwithstanding use of the word “must” in these provisions, the overall process 
described in (c)(5) and (6) indicates that the Agency may choose whether or not to review the 
design plan. This is completely at odds with the Agency’s unambiguous statements in the Final 
Rules requiring design plan approval. The EPA has thus created a system by which the landfill 
owner/operator is required to submit a design plan for agency approval, but neither EPA nor its 
state or local counterparts are held accountable for actually reviewing and approving or 
disapproving those plans. In fact, the process outlined in the Final Rules does not even require 
the regulatory agencies to acknowledge receipt of the plans. 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00020 



2. The Final Rules Provide no Clarity on Whether Landfills Must 

Proceed with GCCS Installation in the Absence of Agency Approval 

The Final Rules state that if the Administrator does not approve or disapprove the design 
plan, or request additional information within 90 days of receipt, then the owner or operator 
“can ” continue with implementation of the design plan, recognizing that they would “be 
proceeding at their own risk.” 40 C.F.R. § 60.767(c)(6); 40 C.F.R. § 60.38f(d)(5) and (6), The 
language is permissive, failing to inform the regulated entity what it should or must do when the 
regulator fails to review and approve their plan, or to provide a path forward for obtaining plan 
approval should the agency be non-responsive. 40 C.F.R. § 60.767(c)(5) & § 60.38f(d)(5). 

This permissive language conflicts with other provisions of the Final Rules requiring 
actions to be taken in conformance with an approved plan. For example, the compliance 
provisions in the Final Rules at Sections 60.765(b) and 60.36f(b) state that the landfill 
owner/operator “must place each well or design component as specified in the approved design 
plan as provided in § 60.767(c) (emphasis added).” Additionally, monitoring provisions at 
Sections 60.766(d) and 60.37f(d) require that a landfill owner/operator complying with the 
GCCS operational standards by using a device other than a non-enclosed flare, an enclosed 
combustor, or treatment system must provide information satisfactory to the Administrator, and 
that the Administrator must review and approve it or request additional information. Likewise, 
where the landfill owner/operator seeks to employ alternatives to the operational standards, test 
methods, compliance provisions or other aspects of the Final Rules, the landfill owner/operator 
must submit those alternatives to the Agency in the design plan. 40 C.F.R. § 60.767(c)(2) and 
§ 60.38f(d)(2). Thus, even though key implementation requirements are contingent on design 
plan approval, the Final Rules do not suspend a landfill’s compliance obligations pending that 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00021 






approval, leaving the landfill with little choice but to take the risk that EPA has identified in its 
rale language. 

These contradictory requirements are paralyzing for affected facilities that have prepared 
and submitted GCCS design plans in good faith. In light of the requirements in the Final Rules 
at Sections 60.762(b)(2)(h) and 60.33f to seek permits, award contracts, install and start up a 
GCCS within 30 months of the regulatory trigger event, a landfill owner or operator is placed 
into an untenable situation: either face potential enforcement risk for missing the 30-month 
compliance deadline, or face potential financial and enforcement risk for installing and operating 
a multi-million-dollar gas collection system in accordance with a design plan that is later 
disapproved. 

3. EPA’s Design Plan Approval Process Subjects Affected Facilities to 
Unclear Compliance Obligations and Untenable Financial and 
Enforcement Risk 

The Final Rules’ design plan approval process creates a circumstance in which affected 

facilities are subject to risk of enforcement regardless of which course of action they take and 

through no fault or failure of their own. Indeed, the Final Rules conclude the confusing design 

plan approval process with the following statement: 

In. the event that the design plan is required to be modified to 
obtain approval, the owner or operator must take any steps 
necessary to conform any prior actions to the approved design plan 
and any failure to do so could result in an enforcement action. 

40 C.F.R. § 60.767(c)(5) and 40 C.F.R § 38f(d)(5). 

This language is unintelligible, and notably, was not included in any of EPA’s 
rulemaking proposals. As an initial matter, EPA does not explain how one can achieve the feat 
of conforming prior actions to a newly imposed requirement. Second, EPA does not explain 
whether the resulting enforcement risk is retroactive, prospective, or both. Certainly, the threat 

15 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00022 


of retroactive enforcement for good-faith actions taken pursuant to a design plan that an agency 
declined to review contravenes basic principles of fairness and due process. Finally, EPA failed 
to even acknowledge the significant financial risk associated with installing a multi-million 
dollar system that may later (maybe years later) be determined insufficient. This risk is 
particularly relevant for landfills that propose site-specific alternatives. Indeed, the Final Rules 
readily acknowledge that: 

Because of the many site-specific factors involved with landfill gas 
system design, alternative systems may be necessary. A wide 
variety of system designs are possible, such as vertical wells, 
combination horizontal and vertical collection systems or 
horizontal trenches only, leachate components, and passive 
systems. 

40 C.F.R. § 60.767(c)(6) and 40 C.F.R. § 60.38f(c)(6). Thus, although EPA clearly 

acknowledges the need for alternative designs, and that the landfill owner/operator is required to 

obtain Agency approval for those designs, EPA makes no commitment to review those 

alternatives. EPA’s response on this issue is insufficient. EPA states: 

Because the initial design can significantly affect the long-term 
operation of the landfill GCCS, and that design is site-specific, the 
EPA has retained the design plan approval process to provide 
flexibility to the sites on designing an appropriate system, while 
also providing a level of regulatory oversight before the system is 
installed in order to minimize scenarios where an improperly 
designed system is constructed and installed. 

EPA, Responses to Public Comments on EPA’s Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid 
Waste Landfills and Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Municipal Solid Waste 
Landfills: Proposed Rules, 965 (hereinafter “Response to Comments Document”) (emphasis 
added). Far from minimizing these risks for regulated entities, EPA’s design plan approval 
process creates enforcement risk where none should exist and expressly does not ensure any 
level of regulatory oversight before the GCCS is installed. Because the GCCS requirement is the 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00023 






centerpiece of the Final Rules, ambiguity and conflicting provisions concerning GCCS design 
plan approval cause the Final Rules to lack the most fund am ental element of a properly 
functioning regulatory system, which is to provide fair and timely notice of the compliance 
obligations to which a regulated entity is subject, in this case via approval of required regulatory 
documents. See generally, United States v. Trident Seafoods, 60 F.3d 556 (9 th Cir. 1995); Gates 
& Fox Co. v. OSTIRC, 790 F.3d 154 (D.C. Cir. 1986); General Electric v. U.S. EPA, 53 F.3d 
1324 (D.C. Cir. 1995). If GCCS design plan approval is a required component of a rale, then 
agency review and approval or denial must also be a rale requirement, so that a regulated entity 
can move forward with implementation, confident that it has been apprised of its compliance 
obligations. The Final Rules fail to provide this essential regulatory element. 

4. EPA Must Correct the Rules to Require Affirmative Agency 
Approval in a Timely Manner 

Petitioners have observed a demonstrated failure by agencies to review, approve, or even 
acknowledge design plan submittals under the existing Subparts WWW and Cc. WM and 
Republic estimate that only about 40% of their landfills operate pursuant to an approved design 
plan due to lack of timely action by EPA and state authorities. Accordingly, Petitioners urge 
EPA to initiate a rulemaking to address this problem under the Final Rules. In that context, we 
again ask EPA to eliminate the need for agency review and approval of GCCS plans, wMch is a 
system that has simply not worked to date. Instead, Petitioners recommend that delegated 
authorities should be allowed to rely upon a licensed, third-party professional engineer (“PE”) 
certification of design plans and revisions in lieu of an agency review and approval process. 
Petitioners recommend that certified plans be maintained onsite for inspection and/or submittal 
to the implementing agency. This approach is consistent with sixty-two other Clean Air Act 
rulemakings identified in Petitioners’ Supplemental Comments attached at Appendix A. 

17 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00024 


Reliance on a certification by a licensed, third-party PE in lieu of agency approval would also be 
consistent with the approach EPA finalized in the Agency’s recent NSPS rulemaking impacting 
the Oil & Natural Gas Sector. See EPA, Oil & Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New 
Reconstructed, and Modified Sources’, Final Rule, 81 Fed. Reg. 35824, 35942, 35848 (June 3, 

2016) (finalizing standards allowing for PE certification of closed vent system design and 
technical infeasibility to co nn ect a pneumatic pump to existing control device). In the event that 
EPA continues to believe that design plan review and approval is necessary, we ask the Agency 
to consider a defined timeframe for such review and a deemed approval in the event that the 
reviewing agency fails to respond in a timely manner. 

C. Non-Producing Areas 

Petitioners request that the Agency initiate a rulemaking proceeding to provide 
compliance flexibility in landfill areas with declining gas flows. Such flexibility is critically 
important to landfills required to implement the more stringent 34 Mg/year non-methane organic 
compound (“NMOC”) emission threshold. In the Final Rules, EPA failed to address three 
critical issues: (1) the Final Rules do not allow for the capping, removal, or decommissioning of 
portions of a GCCS in non-producing areas; (2) the term “closed area” is too narrowly defined, 
which in turn limits the utility of the 1% NMOC exclusion; and (3) the Final Rules do not allow 
the use of surface emission monitoring (“SEM”) to demonstrate that capping, removal, or 
decommissioning of a GCCS is appropriate based on-site specific surface methane 
concentrations. 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00025 


1, The Final Males Should Allow for the Capping, Removing, and. 

Decommissioning of GCCS From Non-Producing Areas of Active and 
Closed Landfills 

In the Final Rules, EPA restricts capping, removing, or decommissioning of a GCCS to 
entire closed landfills and does not allow for capping, removing, or decommissioning' 1 of 
portions of a GCCS in closed or non-producing areas of otherwise active landfills or closed 
landfills. See 40 C.F.R. § 60.762(b)(2)(v); 40 C.F.R. § 60.33f(f). In other words, EPA does not 
allow for partial removal or decommissioning of a GCCS at any landfill, closed or open. At 
proposal, EPA acknowledged and requested com m ent on how non-producing areas of the landfill 
(/. e ., areas that are no longer generating landfill gas), could be excluded from gas collection and 
control requirements and whether the criteria for capping or removing a GCCS in Subparts 
WWW or Cc are appropriate. See 79 Fed. Reg. at 41783 & 41792. In the 2015 Supplemental 
Proposal, EPA proposed criteria for capping and removing a GCCS from the entire closed 
landfill, or portions of an active landfill. 

In the Final Rules, however, EPA only allows for removal of a GCCS from entire closed 
landfills, and not non-producing areas. In the preamble to the Final Rules, EPA states that the 
Agency intended to provide flexibility to landfills with declining gas production by allowing 
landfills to demonstrate that a GCCS cannot operate for 15 years and should be removed. See 81 
Fed. Reg. at 59357-58 & 81 Fed. Reg. at 59302 (“EPA is retaining the requirement to operate the 
GCCS for 15 years, but is providing flexibility to address declining gas flows in areas where the 
GCCS has not operated for 15 years.”). Petitioners appreciate the inclusion of this option, but 
note that EPA has completely failed to achieve its goal of providing flexibility to areas with 

1 1 

‘ Petitioners note that we have repeatedly requested that EPA define the term “decommission” as used in the Final 
Rules, but EPA has refused to do so. We again request that the Agency provide a definition for “decommission” 
that provides a stepdown procedure or options for suspending operation of individual collectors or portions of the 
GCCS system in areas with declining gas flows. 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00026 


declining flows by finalizing removal criteria that only allow for GCCS removal or 
decommissioning in entire closed landfills. 

By excluding from the Final Rules an option for decommissioning or removing a portion 
of a GCCS in non-producing areas, EPA has ignored Petitioners’ and others’ repeated concerns 
about declining gas production. See e.g., WM 2014 Comments at 17-19; WM 2015 comments at 
12-13; Small Business Advocacy Review Panel, Final Report on EPA’s Planned Proposed Rules 
Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills and Review of Emissions 
Guideli n es for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (July 21, 2015) (hereinafter “SBARP Final 
Report”). EPA has not explained why the Agency has arbitrarily limited GCCS 
decommissioning or removal to entire closed landfills, other than to note that such change was 
based on the Agency’s consideration of public comments. However, Petitioners have not 
identified any comments in the rulemaking docket that question EPA’s proposed approach to 
allow for removal or decommissioning of portions of a GCCS in nonproducing areas. 

Without such flexibility, landfills with areas of declining gas production will face 
significant hardships associated with the maintenance of a GCCS in those areas, including an 
inability to comply with wellhead parameters in the Final Rules, risk of pulling ambient air into 
the GCCS and damaging the system, and significant use of fossil fuels to maintain flare 
operation, none of which provide any emission reduction or other environmental benefit. 
Petitioners request that EPA initiate a notice and comment rulemaking to allow for removal or 
decommissioning of GCCS in nonproducing areas of landfills, whether closed or active. 

2. EPA’s Definition of “Closed Area” Is Needlessly Narrow 

The Final Rules allow the landfill owner/operator to use actual gas flow measurements to 

demonstrate that “closed areas” may be excluded from GCCS coverage because they contribute 
less than 1% of a landfill’s total NMOC emissions. However, EPA’s definition of “closed area” 

20 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00027 





in the Final Rules is unnecessarily restrictive as it includes only areas that are physically 
separated from active portions of a landfill: Under the Final Rules, EPA has defined “closed 
area” to mean a: 

separately lined area of an MSW landfill in which solid waste is no 
longer being placed. If additional solid waste is placed in that area 
of the landfill, that landfill area is no longer closed. The area must 
be separately lined to ensure that the landfill gas does not migrate 
between open and closed areas. 

40 C.r.R. § 60.761; 40 C.F.R. § 60.4If. Therefore, under the Final Rules, separately lined areas 
may be excluded trom control upon a showing of less than 1% of NMOC contribution using 
actual flow rates. See 40 C.F.R. § 60.769(a)(3)(ii)(B). 

EPA’s decision to define “closed area” so narrowly fails to provide landfills with 
declining gas flow much needed flexibility, particularly in light of the stringent 34 Mg/year 
MViUU emission threshold in the Final Rules, and is based on the mistaken premise that physical 
separation is needed to prevent gas migration from closed areas. In response to the 2015 
Supplemental Proposal, Petitioners urged EPA to expand its definition of “closed area” to 
include areas with low gas flow, even if such areas are not physically separated from active areas 
by means ot a physical barrier. Petitioners stated that EPA’s concern about gas migration from 
an unclosed area with a GCCS to a closed area without a GCCS was unfounded because land fi ll 
gas travels from areas of high pressure to areas of low pressure. See e.g. Republic 2015 EG 
Comments at 29 (“EPA’s concern that gas could migrate from an unclosed area (with GCCS) to 
a dosed area (without GCCS) is unfounded because landfill gas travels from areas of high 
pressure to areas of low pressure, not the other way around.”). 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00028 


In justifying its decision not to expand the definition of “closed area” in the Final Rules, 

EPA relies on the same unsupported assertion from the 2015 Supplemental Proposal, stating in 

the Response to Comments Document that: 

the EPA has retained the requirement that closed areas of open 
landfills must be physically separated (e.g., separately lined).. . 
because [EPA] continue[s] to believe that landfill gas can migrate 
between areas of the landfill. As described in the [2014 Proposal], 
measurements might not accurately reflect actual emissions from 
the given landfill area because gas could be moving underground 
and escaping or being collected from an adjacent section of the 
landfill. 

Response to Comments Document at 223. EPA further states that Petitioners failed to provide 
additional data that gas migration will not occur. See id. But additional data is unnecessary to 
confirm the laws of physics, which unquestionably dictate that gas would instead migrate from 
the closed area toward the open area with the GCCS, to the extent that it would move at all. EPA 
has not offered any data to support its unfounded assertion that gas migration will occur. 

Petitioners request tha t EPA un dertake a notice and comment rulemaking to correct the 

definition of “closed area” in the Final Rules to eliminate physical separation as a necessary 

criterion. A revised definition of “closed area” would allow nonproducing areas to take 

advantage of actual flow data to demonstrate that such areas contribute less than 1% of the 

landfill’s NMOC emissions. This same definition of “closed area” should be used by EPA when 

revising the GCCS removal criteria to allow for removal or decommissioning of portions of a 

GCCS from nonproducing areas, as discussed above. 

3. The Final Rules Should Allow for Surface Emission Monitoring to 
Support Removal or Decommissioning of a GCCS 

In the 2015 Supplemental Proposal, EPA proposed to allow owners/operators to use SEM 
for purposes of determining when a GCCS can be removed or partially removed. 80 Fed. Reg. at 
52150. Nevertheless, under the Final Rules, the Agency has not included SEM as a basis to 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00029 








demonstrate that site specific conditions warrant removal of GCCS or portions thereof. See 40 
C.F.R. § 60.33f(l)(f) & 40 C.F.R. § 60.764(I)(f) (excluding SEM from GCCS removal criteria), 
the unavailability of SEM for GCCS removal significantly increases the burden of the Final 
Rules’ more stringent 34 Mg/NMOC emission threshold and magnifies concerns for landfills 
with declining gas production. Without the option to use SEM to demonstrate that GCCS 
removal or decommissioning is appropriate, the 34 Mg/year NMOC emission threshold will 
further delay the point at which a landfill may remove controls, even when site-specific 
conditions would warrant removal. 

EPA’s decision to exclude the option of using SEM from the GCCS removal criteria in 
the Final Rules significantly and unnecessarily reduces the flexibility available to landfills with 
areas of declining gas flows and is contrary to the numerous comments submitted to EPA by 
diverse stakeholders. See e.g. WM 2015 Comments; National Association of Clean Air 
Agencies, Comments on 2015 Supplemental Proposal (Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2003 -0215- 
0197; EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0451-0187) (“NACAA 2015 Comments”). 

t he SEM criteria for GCCS removal or decommissioning presented in the 2015 
Supplemental Proposal addressed key concerns raised by Petitioners for the past twelve years 
regarding a step-down for GCCS operations due to declining flow. 12 Many areas of landfills 
with declining flows struggle to maintain sufficient gas flow to operate their control systems, 
even under the 50 Mg/year threshold established under Subparts WWW and Cf. At the lower 34 
Mg/year threshold, landfill owner/operators will need to use increasing amounts of fossil fuel to 
maintain flare operation, which increases emissions of GHG and other pollutants, a result clearly 

12 See Docket ID Numbers EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0451 -0037, EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215-100, EPA-HQ-OAR-2003- 
0215-017, EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215-0055, EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215-0057 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215-0058, 
EP A-HQ-O AR-2014-0451-0176; see also SWAN A, Letter to JoLynn Collins, EPA Waste and Chemical Process 
Group (Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215-003). 

23 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00030 





inconsistent with the purpose of the Final Rules. Therefore, Petitioners urge EPA to allow 
landfill owners and operators the option to use SEM to demonstrate that GCCS removal is 
appropriate. 

EPA’s only explanation for removing such necessary flexibility from the Final Rules is 
that several commenters objected to the use of SEM for GCCS removal demonstrations. See 81 
Fed. Reg. at 59357. However, the Agency ignored the majority of comments that supported the 
use of SEM for GCCS removal demonstrations, including comments submitted by the National 
Association of Clean Air Agencies (“NACAA”), a national, non-partisan, association of air 
pollution control agencies in 40 states, the District of Columbia, four U.S. territories and 116 
metropolitan areas with air quality professionals. See generally NACAA 2015 Comments. In 
fact, of the over 200 comments in the combined dockets for the Final Rules, less than a handful 
of commenters explicitly raised concerns with the use of SEM for determining when a GCCS or 
portions of it could be capped, removed or decommissioned. 

EPA has not explained why the Agency relied on comments from so few entities to 
justify removing the SEM criterion and ignored supporting comments from numerous, diverse 
stakeholders with substantial experience implementing EPA’s CAA Section 111 rules. 
Accordingly, Petitioners request that EPA initiate a rulemaking to revise the Final Rules to allow 
for SEM for purposes of demonstrating the appropriateness of GCCS removal and 
decommissioning, based on site-specific conditions. 

D. EPA Should Adopt a Clear Definition of Cover Penetrations 

In its 2014 Proposal, EPA sought to “clarify” that “all cover penetrations must be 

checked during quarterly surface monitoring.” 79 Fed. Reg. at 41804. However, that proposal 
actually represented a significant change to current requirements, as noted by several 
commenters. See e.g. Republic 2015 EG Comments at 5-7; WM 2015 Comments at 25-27. 

24 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00031 




Whereas Subparts WWW and Cc only require monitoring “where visual observations indicate 
elevated concentrations of landfill gas, such as distressed vegetation and cracks or seeps in the 
cover," the final Rules add to the end of that provision “and all cover penetrations.” Compare 
40 C.F.R, § 60.753(d) with 40 C.F.R. § 60.763(d). The Final Rules also state that an 
owner/operator “must monitor any openingsId. 

With the addition of the phrase “and all cover penetrations,” EPA has shifted the focus 

away from “visual observations [of] elevated concentrations of landfill gas” (with cracks and 

seeps as just examples), to a different focus on cover penetrations, regardless of whether such 

penetrations exhibit any visible signs of landfill gas. Given that very few cover penetrations do 

exhibit visual signs of elevated concentrations, the effect of EPA’s change forces landfill owners 

and operators to monitor “all cover penetrations” instead of only monitoring where visual 

observations suggest that monitoring is warranted. Thus, EPA has fundamentally altered the 

1 

surface monitoring requirement. Far more than a mere “clarification” of existing requirements, 
EPA’s “all cover penetrations” provision is entirely new and potentially burdensome, and 
commenters opposed it. 

But perhaps the most disconcerting aspect of this new requirement is the lack of any clear 
definition of the “cover penetrations” that all landfills must now monitor. Although EPA’s new 
provision certainly expands the monitoring requirement far beyond its previous scope, the lack of 
a definition of “cover penetration” leaves uncertain the full scope of this new requirement. 

Taken literally, the requirement to monitor “ail cover penetrations” could be interpreted to 
require landfills to monitor every single stake in the ground, including every fence and sign post, 
of which most landfills have thousands. Furthermore, EPA’s use of the term “any openings” is 
an ambiguous extra term that adds further confusion to EPA’s intended meaning of “cover 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00032 


penetrations.” In addition to providing a definition of “cover penetrations,” the Agency must 
remove the reference to “any openings” in the Final Rules to avoid creating undue confusion. 

EPA has recognized that a completely literal interpretation of “cover penetrations” was 
not intended. Specifically, EPA noted in the preambles to the Final Rules that “[c]over 
penetrations include wellheads, but do not include items such as survey stakes, fencing or litter 
fencing, flags, signs, trees, and utility poles.” 81 Fed. Reg. at 59288. EPA also confirmed more 
broadly in the Response to Comments Document that “cover penetrations” is only intended to 
include “components] of the GCCS system or leachate collection and control system that 
completely passes through the landfill cover into waste, such as wellheads, leachate risers, and 
manholes.” Response to Comments Document at 745. This more limited definition of “cover 
penetrations” is logical—a “cover penetration” should not present a significant emissions 
concern if it does not reach the waste mass, and most do not, so only those deep enough to reach 
waste warrant monitoring. 

Although EPA’s clarification in the preambles to the Final Rules is helpful and 
appreciated, Petitioners are concerned that some risk of confusion remains without a codified 
definition of “cover penetrations.” Therefore, Petitioners respectfully request that EPA convene 
a rulemaking proceeding to adopt a clear definition of “cover penetrations” into the regulatory 
text to codify the guidance that EPA has provided in its preambles. 

IV. Petition for Reconsideration 

Pursuant to Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, EPA “shall convene a proceeding for 
reconsideration of [a] rule and provide the same procedural rights as would have been afforded 
had this information been available at the time the rule was proposed” so long as the party 
seeking reconsideration can demonstrate: (1) “that it was impracticable to raise such objection” 
during the public comment period or that “the grounds for such objection arose after the period 

26 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00033 




tor public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review)”; and (2) “such objection 
Is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.” 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(7)(B). An objection “is 
of central relevance to the outcome of [a] rule” when that objection “provides substantial support 
tor the argument that the regulation should be revised.” Coalition for Responsible Regulation, 
Inc. v. ERA, 684 F.3d 102, 125 (D.C. Cir. 2012). EPA’s Final Rules present several issues that 
meet these two criteria. As set forth herein, several aspects of the Final Rules were added after 
proposal, which fundamentally change the considerations addressed by commenters at proposal 
and significantly increase the compliance burden and overall impact of the Final Rules. 
Therefore, EPA must convene a reconsideration proceeding on the issues identified in this 
Section IV. 

In addition, EPA’s Final Rules are unlawful because EPA failed to provide adequate 
notice of many critical aspects of them. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia (“D.C. Circuit”) has held that lack of notice claims are subject to the CAA 
reconsideration process, and so Petitioners raise those claims here as well. See EME Homer City 
v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 137 (D.C. Cir. 2015). With regard to the notice that EPA is required to 
provide in promulgating CAA rules, the D.C. Circuit has consistently held that EPA does not 
satisfy the Act’s notice and comment requirement when the final rule is not the “logical 
outgrowth” of the proposed rule. See e.g. Envtl Integrity Project v. EPA, 425 F.3d 992, 996 
(D.C. Cir. 2005); Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority v. EPA, 358 F.3d 936, 951-52 
(D.C. Cir. 2004). A requirement in a final rule is the logical outgrowth of a proposed rale only if 
“interested parties should have anticipated that the change was possible, and thus reasonably 

l 

should have filed their comments on the subject during the notice-and-comment period.” 
Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority, 358 F.3d at 952. The “logical outgrowth 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00034 


doctrine does not extend to a final rule that finds no roots in the agency’s proposal because 
something is not a logical outgrowth of nothing.” Envtl. Integrity Project , 425 F.3d at 996. 
EPA’s Final Rules fails to meet the D.C. Circuit’s standard for adequate notice, and thus should 
be reconsidered for that reason, as well as the substantive issues explained in more detail below. 

A. Tier 4 

The Tier 4 provisions of the Final Rules provide an alternative for determining when a 
landfill must install a GCCS after it has exceeded the NMOC emission threshold of 34 Mg/year 
based on modeled emissions. The Tier 4 methodology is based on a demonstration that site- 
specific surface methane emissions remain below 500 ppm, and thereby justify postponing the 
requirement to install a GCCS. Although the Tier 4 methodology was generally included in the 
Proposed Rules, the Final Rules include certain critical elements of Tier 4 that were not subject 
to notice and comment, are of central relevance to the Final Rules, and must be subject to 
reconsideration. 13 

At proposal, EPA characterized the Tier 4 methodology as a “flexibility” that could allow 
a landfill to potentially mitigate the impacts of the new 34 Mg/year NMOC emission threshold if 
site-specific conditions allowed, while at the same time encouraging early adoption of emission 
reduction strategies and best management practices such as oxidative cover practices and early 
gas collection or control to minimize surface emissions. See e.g. 80 Fed. Reg. at 52115-16 & 80 
Fed. Reg. at 52127-28. EPA further described Tier 4 as the result of EPA’s outreach to small 
entities who were concerned with their ability to comply with the lower NMOC emission 
threshold. See 80 Fed. Reg. at 52128. 


Ij Certain aspects of the Tier 4 issues identified in Section IV.A.3, below, were subject to public comment. 
Nevertheless, such issues add to the burden associated with EPA’s approach to Tier 4 in the Final Rules and 
significantly reduce the method’s intended flexibility. As a result, Petitioners request that EPA address such issues 
in conjunction with a reconsideration proceeding on the other Tier 4 issues identified in this section. 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00035 





Many stakeholders including Petitioners, the Small Business Administration, state 
agencies, and environmental groups submitted comments in favor of Tier 4. Commenters agreed 
with EPA’s analysis that a workable Tier 4 option would incentivize early adoption of methane 
reduction practices like alternative covers and early installation of collection and control 
equipment. 1 * However, the changes to the Tier 4 methodology that are discussed herein have 
resulted in a method that is fundamentally different and more burdensome than the proposed Tier 
4 that was broadly supported by diverse stakeholders. Such changes permanently alter the 
availability and utility of Tier 4, thereby removing much of EPA’s intended flexibility from the 
Final Rules and providing no incentives to drive early emission reductions, which undermines 
the Agency’s purpose in developing Tier 4 in the first instance. 

At proposal, Tier 4 was available to any landfill with NMOC emission rates above 34 
Mg/year. See 80 Fed. Reg. at 52148, 52152. In the Final Rules, however, EPA for the first time 
restricted the use of Tier 4 to landfills with modeled NMOC emission rates between 34 and 50 
Mg/year using Tiers 1 or 2. See 40 C.F.R. 60.764(a)(6) & 40 C.F.R. 60.35f(a)(6); also 81 
Fed. Reg. at 59355 (describing 50 Mg/year cap on Tier 4 methodology as “change” to proposed 
Tier 4), EPA also introduced in the Final Rules a requirement that when average wind speeds 
exceed 4 mph and wind gusts exceed 1.0 mph, landfills must use undemonstrated wind barrier 
technology when conducting Tier 4 SEM. 40 C.F.R. § 6G.764(a)(6)(iii)(A); 40 C.F.R, § 
60.35f(a)(6)(m)(A). In order to determine whether a wind barrier is required during a Tier 4 
sampling event, the Final Rules mandate that a landfill must measure wind speeds with an 
anemometer. Id EPA has also imposed burdensome notification requirements for Tier 4 

14 

“* See e.g. Environmental Defense Fund, Comments on 2015 Supplemental Proposal, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR- 
2003-0215-0204 & EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0451-0181; NACAA 2015 Comments; U.S. Small Business 
Administration’s Office of Advocacy, Comments on 2015 Supplemental Proposal, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2003- 
0215-0187 & EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0451-0155; WM 2015 Comments. 

29 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00036 




monitoring based on weather-related cancellation events, which require landfill owners and 
operators to notify EPA or the relevant state administrator no later than 48 hours before a 
scheduled Tier 4 monitoring event if such event needs to be postponed due to weather 
conditions. See 40 C.F.R. § 60.767(1); 40 C.F.R. § 60.738(m). These aspects of Tier 4 were not 
subject to public comment and, as set forth herein, have fundamentally changed the nature of the 
proposed Tier 4, making the method unrecognizable from that which EPA proposed and 
industrial, environmental, and governmental commenters favored. 

1. Tier 4 Should Not Be Limited to Landfills With Modeled NMOC 
Emission Rates Between 34-50 Mg/year 

The proposed Tier 4 would have been available to all “landfills that exceed modeled 
NMOC emission rates using Tiers 1, 2, or 3” as a way “to demonstrate that site-specific surface 
methane emissions are low.” 80 Fed. Reg. at 52102. A landfill that could demonstrate that 
surface emissions are “below 500 parts per million (ppm) for 4 consecutive quarters would not 
trigger the requirement to install a GCCS even if Tier 1,2, or 3 calculations indicate that the 34 
Mg/yr threshold has been exceeded.” 80 Fed. Reg. at 52102. Under the Final Rules, however, 
Tier 4 is limited to sites with modeled NMOC emission rates between 34 and 50 Mg/year using 
Tiers 1 or 2. See 40 C.F.R. §§ 60.764(a)(6) and 40 C.F.R. 60.35f(a)(6). 

EPA seeks to justify the limitation of Tier 4 to sites with modeled NMOC emission rates 
between 34 and 50 Mg/year by arguing that the limitation was necessary to “avoid[] a potential 
conflict between what is required under [the Final Rules] and what is required by [the Landfill 
NESHAP].” 81 Fed. Reg. at 59355 & 81 Fed. Reg. at 59298-99. EPA’s rationale for restricting 
Tier 4 to landfills with modeled NMOC emissions between 34 and 50 Mg/year because of a 
potential conflict with the Landfill NESHAP is not a compelling justification; it is not based on a 
well-supported technical rationale, and is instead based only on the Agency’s half-hearted 

30 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00037 



attempt to ensure that its own regulations can be applied in harmony. As set forth in Section III 
above, EPA failed to address the inconsistency between the Landfill NESHAP and the Final 
Rules, and in the case of Tier 4, simply altered its applicability criteria in a manner that fails to 
fully address that inconsistency. 

Limiting Tier 4 to sites between 34 and 50 Mg/year will adversely affect a substantial 
number of landfills subject to the Final Rules. EPA has identified only 105 (12 Subpart XXX 
sites and 93 Subpart Cf sites) of the total 1142 combined sites that will be subject to either 
Subpart XXX or Cf that are expected to have NMOC emissions between 34 and 50 Mg/year at 
up through 2025. This total is less than 10% of all sites affected by the Final Rules. See 81 Fed. 
Reg. at 59362 (Table 2) and 81 Fed. Reg. at 59305 (Table 2). WM, for instance, has identified 
only seven existing landfills with modeled NMOC emission rates between 34 and 50 Mg/year 
using Tiers 1 and/or 2, and which would be eligible to use Tier 4. WM has identified an 
additional seven sites with modeled NMOC emission rates currently below 34 Mg/year using 
Tiers 1 and/or 2, which WM anticipates will exceed the 34 Mg/year NMOC emission threshold 
in the next few years. Such landfills may be eligible to use Tier 4 if their modeled NMOC 
emission rates do not exceed 50 Mg/year. At all other WM landfills, Tier 4 would be 
unavailable regardless of the site-specific surface methane emissions at those sites. This is an 
inequitable result and conflicts with the intended purpose of Tier 4 to provide flexibility and 
encourage the early adoption of emission reduction strategies. 

2. New Wind-Related Restrictions On Tier 4 Monitoring Are 
Unsupported 

EPA proposed to limit the use of Tier 4 when the average wind speed exceeds 5 miles per 
hour and the instantaneous wind speed exceeds 10 miles per hour. See 80 Fed. Reg. at 52135-36. 
The Petitioners, among other commenters, submitted comments urging EPA not to finalize the 

31 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00038 


proposed wind-speed restrictions, which Petitioners identified as unsupported by the available 
science and unduly restrictive. See e.g. WM 2015 Comments at 15-16. Neither Petitioners nor 
any other commenters submitted comment on use of a wind barrier as an alternative to the wind- 
speed restrictions because there was no indication in any of EPA’s proposals that would suggest 
wind barriers were under consideration. Nevertheless, in the Final Rules, EPA replaced the 
proposed wind restriction with a requirement to use a wind barrier whenever “average wind 
speed exceeds 4 miles per hour or 2 meters per second or gust exceeding 10 miles per hour.” 40 
C.F.R. §§ 60.764 (a)(6)(iii)(A) & 40 C.F.R. 60.35f(a)(6)(iii)(A). EPA must reconsider use of the 
wind barrier and related obligations because EPA has failed to support the wind-speed 
restrictions with required and relevant analysis, has not undertaken to demonstrate that wind- 
barrier technology is available to be implemented at subject landfills, and has greatly 
underestimated the increased burden such requirements will impose on sites with low site- 
specific surface emission rates. 

a. Lack of Scientific Basis for Wind-Speed Restrictions 
In the Final Rules, EPA fails to provide a justifiable rationale for the need for wind speed 

restrictions and to explain why the Agency decided to lower the average permissible wind speed 
for conducting Tier 4 monitoring from 5 mph to 4 mph. In fact, EPA’s only discussion of 
average permissible wind speed is borrowed from the 2015 Supplemental Proposal, in which 
EPA notes that the Agency included the wind speed restrictions in the Final Rules “because air 
movement can affect whether the monitor is accurately reading the methane concentration during 
surface monitoring.” 81 Fed. Reg. at 59356; 81 Fed. Reg. at 59298. EPA’s conclusory 
statement regarding the impacts of air movement on SEM is not supported and thus provides 
insufficient justification for lowering the Tier 4 wind speed restrictions and requiring use of wind 
barriers. Although EPA states that the Agency has “concerns about whether monitors could 

32 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00039 



accurately read methane concentrations or provide representative results” in windy conditions, 
EPA tails to provide quantitative information to confirm that the accuracy and representativeness 
of SEM results are compromised in windy conditions. Id. The closest the Agency comes to 
providing a technical rationale is found in EPA’s responses to interagency comments in which 
EPA attempts to justify the wind speed restrictions by referring to best practices guidance for file 
Agency's leak detection and repair regulations (“LDAR”) and by providing a graphic from a 
non-peer-reviewed web blog purporting to show a relationship between measured carbon dioxide 
and wind speeds. See EO 12866 OMB correspondence on NSPS and Emission Guidelines 
Reviews for MSW Landfills (EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215-0238), pages 1513-1514 out of 3499 
(hereinafter "Interagency Response to Comments Document”). These inappropriate comparisons 
do not justify the wind speed restrictions in the Final Rules as they are not related to SEM at 
landfalls and EPA has not attempted to explain how they support such restrictions. 

In addition to the Agency’s failure to develop evidence demonstrating the need for wind 


restrictions on Tier 4 monitoring, EPA’s assumptions about the impacts of wind speed on SEM 
results is misplaced. The Final Rules require probe placement during a Tier 4 monitoring event 
at no more than 5 cm (2 inches) above the landfill surface, thereby making it unlikely that wind 
or turbulence would interfere with the monitoring device. First, there is likely to be vegetation i 
landfill areas that would implement Tier 4 monitoring. 15 Given the tendency for herbaceous 
vegetation to act as a wind barrier, increasing friction and reducing turbulence, the monitoring 
device would be shielded when placed as required at 5 cm (2 inches) above the surface. Second : 


15 


See generally Daniel P. Duffy, Layer Upon Layer — Landfill covers come in many types and configurations, 
Forester Daily News (Oct. 27, 2013) (available at http://forestemetwork.eom/dailv/waste/laver-upon-laver/ l: The 
Interstate 1 echnology & Regulatory Council — Alternative Landfill Technologies Team, Technical and Regulatory 
Guidance for Design, Installation, and Monitoring of Alternative Final Landfill Covers (Dec. 2003) (available at 
http://www.itrcweb.org/GuidanceDocuments/ALT-2.pdfl : Assal Edwar Haddad, Use of Vegetative 
Mulch As Daily And Intermediate Landfill Cover (2011) (Doctoral Thesis) (available at 
h tt p://stars.lihrary.ucf edu/cs>i /vi 6WCCMtent. csg ?arlicte=3042&con t ext=<etd l. 


33 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00040 







wind speeds are typically stronger at higher altitudes and weaker closer to the surface because 
structures, trees, vegetation and other items create barriers that slow down the wind. The fact 
that wind speeds increase at higher altitudes also calls into question the utility of using an 
anemometer that is 10 meters above the ground, as it is unlikely that wind speeds at 10 meters 
above the ground would provide relevant data for surface measurements. Further, the 
installation of a single anemometer at each landfill (many of which encompass hundreds of 
acres) is unlikely to be representative of wind speeds across the entire landfill, given differences 
in topography, and the influence of surrounding forests, fields, and physical structures. 

b. Wind-Speed Restrictions Are Unduly Burdensome 
In addition to failing to articulate a justifiable basis to impose wind speed restrictions on 

Tier 4 monitoring, EPA severely underestimates the impacts such restrictions will have on the 
regulated community. An analysis of wind speed data for 292 cities provides data on average 
annual wind speed and seasonal (or quarterly) wind speeds across the United States. 16 Los 
Angeles is the only city in the data set that has an average wind speed under 4 mph for all four 
quarters of the year. Put another way, 291 cities (or more than 99% of cities in the dataset) have 
average seasonal wind speeds consistently above 4 mph and would therefore be required to use a 
wind barrier in order to conduct Tier 4 monitoring. This analysis is consistent with the 
memorandum by Eastern Research Group (“ERG”) on the California Landfill Methane Rule 
(“CA LMR”), which concludes that 72% of landfills could not comply with the CA LMR’s 5 
mph wind speed restriction for surface monitoring and required a permanent alternative 
compliance option. See ERG, Analysis of Surface Exceedances from California Landfills under 
the New Source Performance Standards and the California Landfill Methane Rule, 4 (July 2015) 

16 WeatherDB, “Find Average Wind Speed across the US, accessed on October It, 2016, https://wind- 
speed.weather.db.com 

34 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00041 






(Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215-0233). Thus, it is clear that EPA’s establishment of a 
wind speed restriction of 4 mph will require the use of a wind barrier by a lm ost any landfill 
owner/operator who intends to implement Tier 4 to demonstrate that site-specific methane 
surface emissions are below 500 ppm. 

This profound impact is compounded by the fact that EPA has not developed a consistent 
methodological approach to the use of wind barriers. Although almost every landfill that uses 
Tier 4 will be required to employ wind barrier technology, EPA has provided no direction on 
how to implement the wind barrier requirement in a consistent manner across the United States. 
EPA has indicated that the Agency intends to provide guidance on this topic, but as of yet has 
failed to take required actions to ensure that this approach can be properly implemented by the 
regulated community. See 81 Fed. Reg. at 59342 and 81 Fed. Reg. at 59291 (“Although we are 
aware of the use of wind barriers in the field, the EPA intends to provide additional guidance on 
their use.”). As an example of an aspect of Tier 4 that may prove unworkable in practice, 
Petitioners note that the requirement to place the sampling probe “no more than 5cm above the 
landfill surface” as based on “a mechanical device such as with a wheel on a pole” may be 
infeasible. 40 C.F.R. § 60.764(a)(6)(iii); 40 C.F.R. § 60.35f(a)(6)(iii). Landfills tend to have 
uneven surfaces covered by vegetation and other obstacles. EPA also states that the wind barrier 
must surround the surface emission monitor and must be placed “on the ground” to ensure that 
wind turbulence is blocked. See 81 Fed. Reg. at 59373; 81 Fed. Reg. at 59317. Petitioners are 
not aware of any wind barrier capable of being placed on the ground that would not also prohibit 
the required probe placement at no more than 5cm above the landfill surface. Petitioners also 
note that EPA has not demonstrated that the wind hairier is compatible with Section 8.3.1 of 
Method 21, which the final Rules require Petitioners to follow to meet the Tier 4 requirements. 

35 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00042 




See 40 C.F.R. § 60.764(a)(6)(iii); 40 C.F.R. § 60.35f(a)(6)(iii). Furthermore, Petitioners believe 
that use of a mechanical device on a wheel would result in the wind barrier breaking away from 
the monitoring setup, or damaging the analyzer probe. These concerns underscore the fact that 
EPA should have developed a consistent methodological approach to the use of wind barriers 
and demonstrated the feasibility of Tier 4 before finalizing the Final Rules. 

EPA has also not provided a single piece of evidence in the Final Rules or related dockets 
substantiating that wind barriers will work reliably at a majority of landfills. EPA purports to 
have included the wind barrier requirement to allow landfills to conduct Tier 4 monitoring in 
windy conditions. However, the Agency has not demonstrated that the use of such barriers will 
provide for consistent and reliable SEM results. 

EPA’s 48-hour cancellation requirement is an added burden, requiring the landfill 
owner/operator to rely on a weather forecast 48 or more hours in advance of a planned Tier 4 
monitoring event to determine if it should be cancelled due to weather conditions. 40 C.F.R. 

§ 60.767(1)(2); 40 C.F.R. § 60.38f(m)(2). The notification requirement that EPA has inserted in 
the Final Rule ignores the reality that weather forecasts change often and significantly. Instead 
of making a timely determination whether to proceed with Tier 4 monitoring on a given day, an 
owner/operator may be forced to make a decision to cancel Tier 4 monitoring events two or more 
days before the event, simply to avoid making a weather-related cancellation less than 48 hours 
before the scheduled date due. Landfill owners and operators cannot be expected to predict the 
weather and must be given the flexibility to assess changing weather conditions prior to 
monitoring. But the current approach makes it significantly more likely that Tier 4 monitoring 
events will be delayed frequently due to uncertainty about weather conditions, thereby 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00043 


complicating the coordination efforts necessary to use Tier 4, increasing the compliance burden 
and potentially leading to missed quarterly monitoring events. 

For all of the foregoing reasons, Petitioners request that EPA reconsider the following 
aspects of the Final Rules: (1) the limitation on the use of Tier 4 to landfills with modeled 
NMOC emission rates between 34 and 50 Mg/year; and (2) the Tier 4 wind speed restrictions 
and associated wind barrier requirement because these changes have altered the fundamental 
nature of Tier 4 in a manner that Petitioners could not have foreseen. 

6 t tit fc. r t 1^^ sj IT 

In addition to the issues previously discussed in this section, Petitioners have identified a 
number of other issues in the Tier 4 provisions of the Final Rules that were subject to public 
comment, but that EPA has failed to address and that further limit the flexibility the Agency 
intended to provide to landfills through the inclusion of Tier 4. We request that the Agency 
consider the following aspects of Tier 4 in conjunction with the reconsideration proceeding 
requested above. 

JL 

a. Tier 4 Monitoring Procedures Should Include Corrective 
Action 

The Final Rules do not provide a corrective action period for Tier 4 monitoring 
exceedances, thereby rendering Tier 4 unworkable and undercutting EPA’s stated intention of 
encouraging the early adoption of alternative control teclmiques. In their comments, Petitioners 
urged EPA to include a single, 10-day corrective action period for each exceedance of the 500 
ppm methane emission threshold. Petitioners stated that without a single, 10-day corrective 
action opportunity, Tier 4 would be less effecti ve as a good predictor of the appropriate timing 
for GCCS installation, and that landfill owner/operators will be less likely to use Tier 4 if a 


37 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00044 



single exceedance results in the obligation to install a GCCS. See e.g, MWRA & SWANA 2015 
Comments at 18; WM 2015 Comments at 14-15. 

•t 

Numerous states and the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel agreed with 
Petitioners’ comments about the need for a corrective action concept to accompany Tier 4. 
Specifically, the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel concluded in its report on the proposed 
Final Rules that “Tier 4 should allow for corrective action when surface emissions above 500 
[ppm] are identified, consistent with corrective action provisions for quarterly surface 
monitoring. Without corrective action allowances, the usefulness of Tier 4 is limited.” SBARP 
Final Report at 7-8. 

EPA has not stated a justifiable rationale for its decision to exclude from the Final Rules 
a 10-day corrective action period for Tier 4 exceedances. Instead, EPA explains its action with 
the unsubstantiated claim that a single exceedance of the “500 ppm threshold ... would be 
indicative of higher emissions than would normally be expected at a landfill” and that “landfill 
conditions warrant installation of a GCCS.” 81 Fed. Reg. at 59355. In the Agency’s Response 
to Co mm ents Document, EPA further explains that it is “not allowing for corrective action as 
part of the Tier 4 demonstration to ensure that landfills employ operational practices that 
minimize emissions.” Response to Comments Document at 564. Such statements are simply 
incorrect; a single surface emission exceedance that can be corrected is most likely an indication 
of a localized anomaly in cover or other site-specific factors and not relevant to a general 
conclusion as to overall levels of surface emissions throughout a landfill. 

EPA’s explanation fails to recognize that the lack of a corrective action concept in Tier 4 
will render Tier 4 impracticable to use, and will discourage the adoption of early emission 
reduction strategies such as oxidative covers and early gas collection and control. 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00045 




1 tins, kl J A must revise Tier 4 to allow for a single, 10-day corrective action period prior 
to requiring a landfill to begin the process of installing a GCCS. 

b. The Final Rules Should Be Clarified to Address When 
Landfills Are Permitted to Use 1 ler 4 

At proposal, a landfill owner/operator would have been permitted to use Tier 4 after a 
demonstration with Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3 that the landfill’s NMOC emission rates are above 
the GCCS installation threshold. See 80 Fed. Reg. 52102 & 52112. Under the Final Rules, 
however, it is unclear what emissions modeling method a landfill owner/operator must use 
before it may implement Tier 4 monitoring. For example, in the test methods and procedures 
section of the Final Rules, “Tier 4 is allowed only if the landfill owner or operator can 
demonstrate that NMOC emissions are greater than or equal to 34 Mg/yr but less than 50 Mg/yr 
using Tier 1 or Tier 2,” suggesting that a landfill need not conduct both Tier 1 and Tier 2 before 
moving on to Tier 4, and that Tier 3 measurements are not relevant to Tier 4 implementation. 40 
C.F.R. § 60.764(a)(6); 40 C.F.R. § 60.35f(a)(6). Another provision in the Final Rules, however, 
states that landfill owners and operators may use Tier 4 if Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3 show a 
calculated NMOC emission rate between 34 and 50 Mg/year. See 40 C.F.R. § 60.762(b)(2) & 40 
C.F.R. § 60.33f(e)(2). Adding further to the confusion, the Final Rules state that the ann ual Tier 
4 surface emission report must include, inter alia, “the results of the most recent Tier 1 and Tier 
2 results in order to verify that the landfill does not exceed 50 Mg/yr ofNMOC.” 17 40 C.F.R. 


This provision in the Final Rules may suggest that a landfill will conduct yearly Tier 1 and 
1 ier 2 measurements to verify that estimated NMOC emissions continue to remain between 34 and 50 Mg/year, the 
results of which must be included in the annual Tier 4 surface emission reports. Landfill owners and operators must 
not be expected to conduct annua! Pier 1 and Tier 2 monitoring after a landfill has begun implementing Tier 4, A 
requirement to conduct annual Tier 1 and Tier 2 testing would be inconsistent with the use of Tier 4, which more 
accurately accounts for emissions by measuring site-specific surface methane concentrations. Furthermore, EPA has 
not considered the costs that would be associated with an annual obligation to conduct Tier 1 and Tier 2 tests after 
moving on to Tier 4. Thus, EPA must clarify that landfills using Tier 4 need not conduct annual Tier 1 and. Tier 2 
tests, EPA must further clarify that only the initial Tier 4 surface emission report must include the results of any 
Tier 1 or Tier 2 test. 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00046 



§ 60.767(c)(4)(iii); 40 C.F.R. § 60.38f(d)(4)(iii). EPA must revise the Final Rules to clarify for 
landfill owners and operators exactly what methods a landfill must perform prior to 
implementing Tier 4 monitoring. 

c. The Final Rules Should Be Clarified to Address the Timing of 
GCCS Installation and Operation for Sources Using Tier 4 

Under the Final Rules, landfills meeting the rules’ design capacity thresholds are required 
to submit a GCCS design plan wi thin one year of the first NMOC emission rate report in which 
the modeled NMOC emission rate exceeds 34 Mg/year using Tiers 1, 2, or 3, and to install and 
operate a GCCS within 30 months of the first NMOC emission rate report in which the modeled 
NMOC emission rate exceeds 34 Mg/year using Tiers 1, 2, or 3. See 40 C.F.R. §§ 60.762(b)(2) 
& 767(c); 40 C.F.R. §§ 60.33f(b)(l) & (e)(2), 38f(d). However, a landfill using Tier 4 must 
submit a GCCS design plan within one year of the first measured concentration of methane of 
500 parts per million or greater from the surface of the landfill, and must install and operate a 
GCCS within 30 months of the most recent NMOC emission rate report in which the NMOC 
emission rate equals or exceeds 34 Mg/year based on Tier 2. 40 C.F.R. § 60.764(a)(6); 40 
C.F.R. § 60.35f(a)(6). By linking GCCS installation and operation for sources using Tier 4 to 
the Tier 2 NMOC emission rate report rather than the triggering surface methane exceedance 
under Tier 4, EPA has reduced the amount of time a Tier 4 source has to install and operate a 
GCCS. 

Under this framework, sources using Tier 4 will have less than 30 months - in some 
cases significantly less - to install and operate a GCCS. A landfill using Tier 4 will necessarily 
measure a surface methane emission exceedance after submitting its “most recent” NMOC 
emission report. For example, a landfill may measure a surface methane exceedance nearly 12 
months after submittal of an NMOC report, but before a new NMOC emission report is due. 

40 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00047 



Under this seenano, that Tier 4 source would only have around 18 months to install and operate a 
GCCS. Clearly EPA could not have intended this inequitable situation for Tier 4 sources, which 
further reduces the incentives to use Tier 4 and adopt early emission reduction strategies. Thus, 
EPA must revise the Final Rules to clarify that Tier 4 sources would be required to install and 
operate a GCCS 30 months from the date on which a surface methane exceedance of 500 ppm is 

Js> J&. 

measured using Tier 4. 8 

d. The Final Rules Should Clarify the Process for Submitting 
Annual Tier 4 Surface Emission Report 

The Final Rules state that the initial Tier 4 surface emission report “must be submitted 
annually, starting within 30 days of completing the fourth quarter of Tier 4 surface emissions 
monitoring that demonstrates that site-specific surface methane emissions are below 500 [ ppm] 
methane.” 40 C.F.R. § 60.767(c)(4)(iii) & 40 C.F.R. § 60.38f(d)(4)(iii). The Final Rules further 
state that in the event that Tier 4 monitoring reveals a surface exceedance of 500 ppm methane, a 
Tier 4 surface emissions report must be submitted “within 1 year of the first measured 
exceedance.’ Id. It is not clear if EPA intends this to be a separate surface emission report than 
the one required to be submitted annually. 

Petitioners urge EPA to clarify the surface emission reporting requirements for Tier 4 
sources, and recommend that EPA require the initial report to be submitted following the 4th 
quarter of SEM, with annual submissions thereafter. Petitioners further urge EPA to allow Tier 4 
sources a minimum of 60 days to submit the initial report, instead of the 30 days currently 


|g ^ 

Petitioners submitted comments to EPA urging the Agency to fix inconsistencies in the proposed Final Rules as to 
the timing of GCCS design plan development and installation for Tier 4 sources. In the Response to Comments 
Document, EPA claims to have “revised the final NSPS and Emission Guidelines to make the submittal dates clear” 
for Tier 4 sources. Response to Comments Document at 546. However, EPA’s revisions have created additional 
confusion and burdens for sources choosing to use Tier 4. 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00048 




included in the Final Rules. This additional time is necessary to account for the volume of 
information that must be included in such reports. 

In addition, Petitioners believe that EPA has mistakenly included the language in the 
F inal Rules that requires a landfill to submit a Tier 4 surface emission report within one year of a 
measured exceedance. Once a landfill measures surface methane concentrations above 500 ppm, 
Tier 4 monitoring is no longer permitted under the Final Rules, and the landfill is required to 
begin the process for installation and operation of a GCCS. Thus, there is no reason to submit a 
Tier 4 surface emission report in such a situation. Petitioners request that EPA clarify the 
submittal requirements for Tier 4 surface emission reports. 

e. Tier 4 Recordkeeping Requirements Should Be Reduced 

Under the Final Rules, landfills that employ Tier 4 must “keep for at least 5 years up-to- 
date, readily accessible records of all surface emissions monitoring and information related to 
monitoring instrument calibrations.” 40 C.F.R. § 60.768(g); 40 C.F.R. § 60.39f(g). Such records 
must include, inter alia, a timestamp of “each surface scan reading ... detailed to the nearest 
second, based on when the sample collection begins” and a “log for the length of time each 
sample was taken using a stopwatch (e.g., the time the probe was held over the area)” and the 
location “of each surface scan reading” showing “coordinates using an instrument with an 
accuracy of at least 4 meters.” Id. 

EPA has failed to articulate a basis to require such records. The obligation to maintain 
timestamp and location records for all surface emission readings, not only methane readings at 
or above 500 ppm, will be a significant burden. Typically, SEM is performed by a single 
technician. However, the timestamp and location records will increase the manpower necessary 
to perform SEM, increasing costs of Tier 4 and further limiting the intended flexibility the 
method is meant to provide to subject landfills. For example, a single technician will not be able 

42 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00049 




to operate the surface monitoring device, a stopwatch, and a GPS device at the same tim e. 
Additionally, EPA lias tailed to demonstrate the availability of GPS devices with accuracy of 
four meters. Petitioners believe that the current practice of placing flags at monitoring locations 
is more accurate, and would not be improved upon by the use of a GPS device. EPA should 
streamline the recordkeeping requirements associated with Tier 4. 

f. EPA Failed to Consider the Costs Associated With Tier 4 

Despite the fundamental changes to Tier 4 that have been highlighted above, EPA has 

completely failed to consider the costs associated with Tier 4 in the Final Rules. A review of the 
Interagency Response to Comments Document shows that commenters urged EPA to consider 
the costs ot Tier 4 in the Final Rules. EPA claimed that the Agency lacked necessary data and 
that ‘the cost to conduct a Tier 4 analysis is site specific depending on the acreage of each 
landfill opting to pursue Tier 4 monitoring. Due to all of these uncertainties the EPA has not 
costed out Tier 4.” Interagency Response to Comments Document at 422 out of 3499. EPA 
further noted that it decided not to determine the costs of Tier 4 because Tier 4 is voluntary. 

EPA’s explanation that the Agency failed to consider costs because Tier 4 is a site- 
specific, voluntary methodology is unpersuasive. Given the prescriptive nature of the final Tier 
4, it is not clear what EPA means when the Agency says that an analysis of Tier 4’s costs would 
be site specific - all regulations have “site-specific” costs associated with their implementation. 
Furthermore, despite EPA’s claims that the site-specific nature of Tier 4 makes quantifying costs 
too difficult, Petitioners have identified a number of factors EPA could and should have 
considered to determine the costs of Tier 4, including (1) capital costs for all newly required 
equipment; (2) costs for surveys, perhaps on a “per acre” basis; and (3) additio nal expenses 
associated with cancelled monitoring surveys due to wind-related issues, additio n al surface 
monitoring technicians, etc. EPA must account for the costs of Tier 4. 

43 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00050 




B. Liquids Addition Reporting 

EPA has conceded that the Agency does not have sufficient data to impose separate 
standards on landfills that add liquids. See 81 Fed. Reg. at 59345 & 81 Fed. Reg. at 59289 
(“EPA did not receive sufficient data to support a separate subcategory for landfills adding 
leachate or other liquids.”). Nevertheless, under the Final Rules, a landfill with a design capacity 
of 2.5 million megagrams and 2.5 million cubic meters or more that has recirculated leachate or 
added liquids based on a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) Research, 
Development, and Demonstration (“RD&D”) permit within the last 10 years must prepare and 
submit an annual report that contains voluminous information about liquids addition practices 
(“Annual Liquids Addition Report”). 40 C.F.R. § 60.767(k); 40 C.F.R. § 60.38(f)(1). EPA did 
not introduce the concept of the Annual Liquids Addition Report until the Final Rules, thus 
providing no notice or opportunity to comment on the new reporting requirement. 

Although EPA acknowledged in both the 2014 Proposal and 2015 Supplemental Proposal 
that the Agency was considering the development of alternative requirements for landfills that 
add liquids, EPA never proposed that such landfills would be subject to additional reporting 
obligations under the Final Rules in the absence of substantive compliance obligations. In the 
2014 Proposal, EPA solicited comments as to whether the Agency should consider reducing the 
design capacity threshold and/or initial lag times for landfills located in a wet climate, or that 
recirculate leachate or add other liquids to the landfill. See 79 Fed. Reg. at 41808. EPA’s 
solicitation of comments failed to provide clear notice of what exactly EPA was considering. In 
the 2015 Supplemental Proposal, EPA further solicited comment on alternative design thresholds 
and lag times for landfills located in wet climates or that add liquids. See 80 Fed. Reg. at 52137- 
38. At no point during the notice and co mm ent period, however, did EPA propose an annual 
reporting obligation exclusively for such landfills. 

44 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00051 


Given that EPA did not provide an opportunity to co mm ent and has acknowledged that 
EPA currently cannot justify separate standards for landfills that add liquids, EPA must convene 
a reconsideration proceeding to allow comment on this issue. 

1. Annual Reporting Requirement is Unduly Burdensome 
EPA appears to have based the adoption of the liquids addition reporting requirements in 

part on a mistaken understanding of the relative impact of the Annual Liquids Addition Report. 
EPA stated in the preambles to the Final Rules that “EPA believes many landfills ... already 
keep [liquids addition] records and may submit reports containing quantities of liquids added. 

So, the effort to track these additional data is expected to be minimal.” 81 Fed. Reg. at 59350; 

81 Fed. Reg. at 59295. EPA is mistaken, however, as the Annual Liquids Addition Report will 
require Petitioners to expend significant effort that far exceeds any benefit of such report. The 
Annual Liquids Addition Report imposes new and extensive recordkeeping requirements that are 
materially different and substantially more burdensome than what is required of landfills 
recirculating leachate or operating bioreactor landfills pursuant to RCRA RD&D permits and 
Subpart HH of EPA’s Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (40 C.F.R. Part 98). 

The Annual Liquids Addition Report imposes new and extensive recordkeeping 
requirements in the Final Rules that are materially different than those typically required by 
RD&D permits. EPA estimates that approximately 30 MSW landfills operate with RD&D 
permits, of which WM operates five. See Revision to the Research Development and 
Demonstration Permits Rule for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, 81 Fed. Reg. 28720-28724, 
28721 (May 10, 2016) (“There are approximately 30 facilities currently operating with RD&D 
permits.”). Thus, EPA incorrectly assumes that many landfills keep records of liquids addition 
pursuant to RD&D permits. Additionally, those landfills t ha t do operate under RD&D permits 
are expected to provide data in a materially different manner than would be required under the 

45 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00052 


Annual Liquids Addition Report. Based on Petitioner’s experience, RD&D permits typically 
require a moisture balance calculation that accounts for total liquids added to the waste mass 
including leachate recirculated, precipitation, and leachate collected. States generally require 
this moisture balance to be reported by landfill phase or bioreactor cell. Because liquids are 
typically added at the working face of the landfill or active phase, this area tends to be a moving 
phase over the course of a year, making it difficult to translate into a calculation of surface area 
and thereby determine waste in place. Thus, the Agency’s assumption that many of the data 
elements in the Annual Liquids Addition Report are tracked as part of a leachate management or 
RD&D permit is false and significantly underestimates the burdens associated with converting 
such data to a format that is compatible with the Annual Liquids Addition Report. 

In addition, pursuant to the GHG Reporting Program, MSW landfills that exceed 
applicability thresholds must qualitatively report to EPA if the site recirculated leachate in the 
past 10-year period. Specifically, 40 C.F.R. § 98.346(a) requires an owner/operator to include in 
a report “an indication of whether leachate recirculation is used during the reporting year and its 
typical frequency of use over the past 10 years (e.g., used several times a year for the past 10 
years, used at least once a year for the past 10 years, used occasionally but not every year over 
the past 10 years, not used).” If a subject facility did recirculate leachate in the calendar 
reporting year, then that site must collect data on the total volume of leachate recirculated and 
use this volume to determine which k-value to use for the reporting year (if applicable) according 
to Table HH-1 of 40 C.F.R. 98 Subpart HH. 19 Sites also report the annual waste acceptance 

a. • 

19 Footnotes a and b to Table HH-1 state the following: 

“^Recirculated leachate (in inches/year) is the total volume of leachate recirculated from company records or 
engineering estimates divided by the area of the portion of the landfill containing waste with appropriate unit 
conversions. Alternatively, landfills that use leachate recirculation can elect to use the k value of 0.057 rather than 
calculating the recirculated leachate rate. 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00053 


rates, along with a characterization of the waste types (e.g., MSW, construction and demolition 
debris, and inert materials); however, Subpart HH does not require recordkeeping or reporting of 
volume of leachate recirculated, surface area where leachate has been recirculated over the 
course of a year, or quantity of waste disposed in areas of leachate recirculation, and such data 
cannot be readily extracted from Subpart HH reports. Further, reporting on leachate 
recirculation practices only commenced with the 2010 reporting year. 

Given the differences between liquids reporting pursuant to RCRA RD&D Permits and 
the GHG Reporting Program, EPA incorrectly assumes that landfills already keep the 
information required by the Annual Liquids Addition Report and as a result greatly 
underestimates the burdens associated with such report. 


2, The Final Males Should Not Include a Reporting Obligation That is 
Unrelated to Any Compliance Obligation 

As discussed above, EPA has acknowledged that the Agency “did not receive sufficient 


data to support a separate subcategory for landfills adding leachate or other liquids,” and 


as a 


result decided not to adopt separate compliance requirements for landfills that add liquids. See 
81 Fed. Reg. at 59345; 81 Fed. Reg. at 59289. Instead, EPA states in the Final Rules that “it is 
appropriate to 'further assess emissions from wet landfills prior to taking additional action.” Id. 
Thus, EPA 'intends for the Annual Liquids Addition Reports to “inform potential action on wet 
landfills in the future.” Id. EPA should not include reporting obligations that, by EPA’s own 
acknowledgement, are unrelated to operative requirements in the Final Rules. Such obligations 
are arbitrary and capricious given that they bear no relationship to the rules at issue, and are 
unsupported by EPA’s own data. 


b Use the lesser value when precipitation plus recirculated leachate is less than 20 inches/year. Use the greater value 
when precipitation plus recirculated leachate is greater than 40 inches/year. Use the average of the range of values 
when precipitation plus recirculated leachate is 20 to 40 inches/year (inclusive). Alternatively, landfills that use 
leachate recirculation can elect to use the greater value rather than calculating the recirculated leachate rated’ 


47 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00054 









EPA’s authority to promulgate recordkeeping and reporting requirements is limited by 
Section 114 of the CAA. Section 114 allows EPA to require reporting for the following 
purposes: (1) developing regulations under Sections 110, 111, 112, or 129 of the CAA; 

(2) determining if a regulated entity is in violation of a CAA rale; or (3) carrying out a provision 
of the Act, See 42 U.S.C. § 7414(a), Although EPA has stated that the Annual Liquids Addition 
Reporting requirements are intended to inform potential future action, the Agency has failed to 
articulate why additional information is needed, having already determined that the creation of a 
subcategory for landfills that add liquids is not warranted. During the notice and comment 
period, EPA requested information about landfills located in wet climates or that add liquids. 
Based on the information submitted by the numerous commenters, EPA was unable to form a 
basis to impose separate regulations on such landfills. See 81 Fed. Reg, at 59345; 81 Fed. Reg. 
at 59289. Given that fact, it is unreasonable to require landfills to submit data when EPA has no 
basis to presume that such data w r ould support separate standards. Furthermore, EPA clearly 

j 

acknowledges in the Final Rules that the Annual Liquids Addition Reports are unrelated to any 
compliance obligation in the Final Rules. 

Given the absence of any compliance obligation for landfills that add liquids, the 
inclusion of a free-standing reporting obligation within the Final Rules serves no compliance 
purpose and therefore is inconsistent with the provisions of Section 111 and cannot be justified 
under Section 114. EPA has not explained how an on-going reporting obligation for landfills 
that add liquids is consistent with the regulatory development aspects of Section 114. 
Furthermore, the Annual Liquids Addition Report is unnecessary given EPA’s efforts to 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00055 






comprehensively address landfills that add liquids in the Agency’s forthcoming revisions to 
RCRA Subtitle D, Part 258. 20 

On reconsideration, EPA should remove the Annual Liquids Addition Report from the 
Final Rules. 

C. Corrective Action Timeline Procedures 

In the 2015 Supplemental Proposal EPA requested comments on the submittal of 
corrective action timelines. However, EPA’s proposal did not include a specific schedule for 
submitting alternative timeline requests because EPA believed that investigating and determining 
the appropriate corrective action, as well as the schedule for implementing that corrective action, 
should be site specific and depend on the reason for exceedance. See 80 Fed. Reg. at 52126. In 
their comments, which addressed this subject, Petitioners agreed with EPA that corrective action 
schedules should be site specific. 

However, the Final Rules contain a highly complex and prescriptive schedule for 
corrective action. The mandated schedule generally gives owners or operators only 60 days to 
investigate, determine appropriate corrective action, and implement the corrective action. If an 
exceedance cannot be corrected within 15 days, then a root cause analysis must be conducted 
within 60 days of the initial exceedance. Further, an implementation schedule is required for 
exceedances that will take longer than 60 days to complete the corrective action(s) as soon as 
practicable, but no more than 120 days. The regulatory provision that EPA adopted in the Final 
Rules to require this particular schedule for corrective action was not available for comment. 


20 

In July 2016, EPA announced that the Agency will be requesting “information and data on the performance of wet 
landfills.” EPA, 2016 Regulatory Agenda (available at 

hnp ..: //www.reginfo.gov/public/do / eAeendaviewRule?PubldN20 1 604&RlN~2050-AG861 . 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00056 






The original landfill rales (40 C.F.R. Subparts WWW and Cc) require the landfill 


owner/operator to take corrective action for exceedances on a set schedule and request 
alternative timelines as needed. The Final Rules, however, differ in that the schedule is far more 
complex and now require a root cause analysis and submission of a corrective action plan—new 
elements that EPA has never required previously and that were not included in any of EPA’s 
proposals. See 40 C.F.R. § 60.765(a)(3)&(5); 40 C.F.R. § 60.36f (a)(3)&(5). 

Rather, EPA’s new complex corrective action requirements and procedure actually 
appear to be a response to a comment submitted by Republic, asking for an entirely different 
corrective action procedure, one that eliminates the approval process altogether to avoid the 
concerns that arise when EPA and states fail to issue their approval in a timely manner. 

Although Republic supported an approach that would include a root cause analysis and reporting 
of certain events, Republic did not support any requirement for the submission of corrective 
action plans for approval. See Republic 2015 EG Comments at 13. Thus, the corrective action 
requirements in the Final Rules are entirely new—the approach was never proposed by EPA or 
any commenter. Moreover, EPA’s Final Rules do not address the primary focus of Petitioners’ 
comments on the corrective action process— i.e., Petitioners’ concern that many alternative 
timeline requests are never approved because of a lack of agency review. 

Because EPA provided no notice of its new corrective action requirements and procedure 
in any proposal, Petitioners could not have commented on it, and EPA’s lack of notice 
constitutes a violation of its rulemaking requirements under the CAA. In addition, because the 
corrective action component is the primary compliance obligation imposed on landfills to ensure 
emissions are minimized through good operation of a gas collection and control system, the 
requirement is clearly of central relevance to the outcome of the Final Rules. Therefore, 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00057 


Petitioners respectfully request that EPA reconsider its new corrective action requirements and 
procedure to allow Petitioners and the general public an opportunity to comment on it. 

As part of the reconsideration proceeding, EPA should evaluate whether preparation of a 
root cause analysis and submission of a corrective action plan is necessary over and above 
simply reporting temperature or negative pressure events, as already required under the existing 
provisions of Subparts WWW and Cc. The root cause and corrective action plan creates 
additional recordkeeping burden that should only be added if EPA can demonstrate that it will 
achieve meaningful air qualify benefits. Background documents in the Interagency Response to 
Comments Document confirm that the approach proposed by Petitioners, not the approach 
finalized by EPA, would provide the EPA with sufficient assurances that timely and appropriate 
measures are taken to avoid hazards, such as landfill fires. Conversely, EPA has not yet 
demonstrated that its new requirements and procedure are needed to ensure proper operation of 
GCCS or provide any environmental benefits. 

EPA should also reevaluate the costs of its new corrective action procedures, given that 
the Agency failed to conduct an adequate cost analysis as part of the Final Rules. Specifically, 
EPA appears to have underestimated the number of root cause analyses that its new pro vision 
will require. The EPA claims it does not have enough data to estimate how many landfills would 
need to conduct the root cause analysis each year, but even a cursory and conservative review of 
data that EPA references in the Interagency Response to Comments Document suggests one 
exceedance per year per landfill will likely require corrective action and root cause analysis. 

EPA should therefore review information from the existing program to provide an expected 
number of reportable incidents, the number of incidents likely to be resolved within the 15 day 
time period, the number of incidents likely to require a root cause analysis and corrective action 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00058 



application, and the usual time (for State and Federal regulatory authorities separately) for 
approval and/or response to such application. During the reconsideration proceedings, EPA must 
accurately reflect the costs associated with the new corrective action procedures. 

V. Petition for Administrative Stay of the Final Rules Pending Judicial Review 

Petitioners respectfully request an immediate stay of the Final Rules. Pursuant to Section 

705 of the APA, EPA may postpone the effective date of a regulation pending judicial review 

where “justice so requires.” 5 U.S.C. § 705. EPA has expressly recognized that the Agency has 

broad authority under Section 705 of the APA to grant an administrative stay pending judicial 

21 

review of a final rule that EPA has promulgated pursuant to the CAA. Petitioners are 
simultaneously filing petitions for review of the Final Rules in the D.C. Circuit, and justice 
requires that the Final Rules be immediately stayed given the significant substantive and 
procedural flaws that have been identified in Sections III and IV of this Petition, which have 
rendered the Final Rules unworkable and unsupportable as presently constituted. 

In considering motions to stay pursuant to APA Section 705, the D.C. Circuit considers 
the following four factors: (1) the likelihood that the party seeking the stay will prevail on the 
merits of the appeal; (2) the likelihood that the moving party will be irreparably harmed absent a 
stay; (3) the prospect that others will be harmed if the court grants the stay; and (4) the public 
interest in granting the stay. See Cuomo v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm ’n, 772 F.2d 972, 974 
(D.C. Cir. 1985). EPA must consider the same set of factors when deciding to grant a stay 


" See EPA, Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters and Commercial and Industrial 
Solid Waste Incineration Unit — Final rules; Delay of effective dates, 76 Fed. Reg. at 28662-28664, 28663 (May 18, 
2011) (“EPA notes that it is delaying the effective date of the Major Source Boiler MACT and the CISWI Rule 
pursuant to the APA, rather than section 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act. As explained above, the APA authorizes 
the EPA to find that justice requires postponing the effective date of a rule when litigation is pending.”); see also 
Sierra Club v Jackson, 833 F. Supp. 2d 11, 24 (D.D.C. 2012) (“While the Clean Air Act establishes the process by 
which either EPA or a court may stay the effectiveness of a rule pending reconsideration, it does not by its terms or 
by logical implication limit the authority of either an agency or a court to exercise its traditional statutory authority 
under Section 705 of the APA to stay such rules or regulations pending judicial review.”). 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00059 




pursuant to APA Section 705. Sierra Club, 833 F. Supp. 2d at 50-51. Petitioners submit that the 
grounds for an administrative stay of the Final Rules pending judicial review are compelling in 
this instance and satisfy the statutory requirements for a stay under APA Section 705. 

The Final Rules present precisely the circumstances in which an administrative stay 
pending judicial review is warranted given the significant regulatory uncertainty caused by the 
substantive and procedural errors in the Final Rules that have been discussed throughout this 
Petition. EPA's failure to address the overlapping applicability issues, identified in Section 
III.A, above, is perhaps the best example of how EPA’s errors warrant an administrative stay 
pending juridical review. First, Petitioners are likely to prevail on the merits in challenging the 
Agency’s unreasonable failure to address the overlapping applicability of the old subparts 
(WWW and Cc), the new subparts (XXX and Cf), and the Landfill NESHAP because the Final 


Rules are directly contrary to EPA’s stated intent and contrary to CAA Section 111 definitions ot 


“new” and “existing” sources by regulating many landfills as both. Second, Petitioners will 


incur irreparable harm as a direct result of the Agency’s failure to resolve the overlapping 
applicability of the various standards because Petitioners will be forced to simultaneously 
comply with different and overlapping provisions from either the new or old subparts, forcing 
Petitioners to engage in two different sets of activities to ensure compliance with the old and new 
subparts. Thus, Petitioners will be forced to comply with both the old and new subparts without 
obtaining any benefit from the regulatory provisions that EPA intended to update and streamline 
with the Final Rules, and the losses that will result will not be recoverable from EPA in any legal 
proceeding. Third, no party will be harmed by EPA’s decision to grant a stay of the Final Rules 
pending judicial review because Subparts WWW and Cc (and the state plans implementing 
Subpart Cc) will remain in effect, thereby ensuring that landfills continue to operate their GCCS 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00060 


and meet the other operational standards of the old subparts, many of which have been carried 
over into Subparts XXX and Cf. Fourth and finally, granting the stay is within the public interest 
because, as noted above, EPA's intention to update and streamline the applicable Section 111 
standards for MSW landfills has been undercut by the Agency’s failure to enact appropriate 
applicability provisions in the Final Rules. 


For all of the forgoing reasons, Petitioners respectfully request that EPA administratively 
stay the Final Rules rale pending judicial review. 


/s/ Carroll W. McGuffev III 
Carroll W. McGuffey 111 
M. Buck Dixon 

TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP 
600 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 5200 
Atlanta, Georgia 30308 
(404) 885-3698 

Counsel for Republic Sendees, Inc, 



Barry Shanoff 

1100 Wayne Avenue, Suite 650 
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 

^ 


Counsel for Solid Waste Association of 
North America 


Respectfully submitted, 


4 

# 

■M. . 

/£■ '■ . Jf. 

Kevin J. tufteffilstt' 

4301 Connecticut Avenue NW #300 
Washington, D.C. 20008 
(202) 364-3743 


Counsel for National Waste & 
Recycling Association 



Carol F. McCabe 
Michael Dillon 

MANKO, GOLD, KATCHER & FOX 
401 City Avenue, Suite 901 
Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania 19004 
(484) 430-2304 

Counsel for Waste Management, Inc. 
and Waste Management Disposal 
Services of Pennsylvania, Inc. 





17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00061 









APPENDIX 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00062 



January 22, 2016 

Via Electronic Transmission: ward.hillary@epa.gov 
Ms. Hillary Ward 

Fuels & Incineration Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division 
U.S. Enviro nm ental Protection Agency 
109 T.W. Alexander Drive (E143-05) 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

Me: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215 

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0451 

Dear Hillary, 

The undersigned organizations representing both private and public landfill owners and operators offer 
the following supplemental comments to those our organizations have already submitted. After 
reviewing the comments submitted in response to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA 
or Agency) Supplemental Proposal for the New Standards of Performance (NSPS) for Municipal Solid 
Waste (MS W) Landfills and the Proposed Emission Guidelines (EG), we thought it might be helpful to 
you to clarify and re-emphasize some of the key points made in our earlier comments and reiterated by 
state officials and other organizations. We understand that the Agency is not required to consider these 
supplemental comments, as the comment period has closed. Nonetheless, we hope the Agency finds 
this document useful, and we appreciate your consideration of our supplemental comments as you 
work towards finalizing the rules. 

We Strongly Support EPA’s Proposed Removal of the Wellhead Operating 
Parameters for Temperature and Oxygen/Nitrogen, while maintaining Monthly 
Monitoring and Recordkeeping 

Our organizations are very supportive of the EPA’s proposal to eliminate the wellhead parameters for 
temperature, oxygen/nitrogen and rely on landfill surface emissions monitoring (SEM) requirements in 
combination with maintenance of negative pressure at wellheads to indicate proper operation of the gas 
collection and control system (GCCS) and minimize surface emissions. 

In our comments, we described our concerns with required wellhead parameters that are 
counterproductive to optimally operating our gas collection and control systems and reducing 
emissions. For many years, these wellhead parameters have been among the most significant barriers 
to earlier installation of gas collection and control measures and in some cases to adequate surface 
emissions and migration control. We provided numerous examples of state agency determinations as 
illustrative examples. (See Waste Management Comments on Proposed XXX and ANPRM for EG, 
September 15, 2014, pg. 24-25, NWRA-SWANA Comments, September 15, 2014, pg. 7-8) 

Our nearly two decades of experience implementing Subparts WWW and Cc has demonstrated that the 
temperature and oxygen/nitrogen parameters are poor indicators of landfill fires or inhibited waste 
decomposition. To comply with the arbitrary temperature and/or oxygen parameters, sites must often 
reduce landfill gas (LFG) flow to the affected well, thereby decreasing system performance and 
increasing potential emissions. Conforming to the wellhead operating parameters imposes significant 
administrative burdens on both regulatory agencies and the regulated community. 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00063 







In reviewing the comments received by the Agency, we noted that the National Association of Clean 
Air Agencies (NACAA), which represents air pollution control agencies in 40 states, DC, four 
territories and 116 metropolitan areas, also supported eliminating the temperature and oxygen/nitrogen 
parameters. Additionally, the majority of state agencies and public organizations submitting separate 
comments including Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, .Minnesota, Ohio, four Wisconsin county agencies, 
ana the U,S. Small Business Administration (SBA) all supported el im i nat i n g the wellhead parameters 
for temperature and oxygen/nitrogen. 

Several states were silent regarding the EPA’s proposal, but strongly supported continued monitoring 
ana iecuicreeping of temperature and oxygen/nitrogen data. We also support continued monitoring 
anil recordkeeping for those parameters. Several state commenters raised concerns they would no 
longer know if a landfill fire occurred; however, the rule requires landfills to report instances when 
positive pressure occurs in the wells and gas extraction system to avoid a fire. We also believe the 
Agency could alleviate some state agency concerns by requiring that the monitoring records be kept 
onsite and available for inspection, and that information suggested by NACAA and the State of 
Delaware (reporting of oxygen values exceeding 5% and temperature exceedances of 130 degrees F) 
be included in the facilities’ semi-annual reports for informational purposes. 

We Support EPA’s Proposal with Recommended Amendments to use Tier 4 as an 
Alternative Approach to Determine when a Landfill must Install and Operate a 
GrtC-S, and when a Landfill can Lap or Remove GCCS due to Declining Flow 

We strongly support the Agency’s proposed use of Tier 4 as an alternative, site-specific emission 
measurement to determine the appropriate timing for Installing and operating a GCCS. We believe 
uiiii a SEM option will enhance decision-making regarding the timing and approach for controlling 
landfill gas emissions, and will incentivize sites to implement methane reduction practices as quickly 
as possible. EPA’s proposal to allow use of Tier 4 SEM for landfills looking to cap or remove GCCS 
due to declining flow is also a welcome approach. 

Providing landfill sites with the option to conduct a Tier 4 will more accurately Identify changes in gas 
generation attributable to climate differences, waste age and composition, and other factors and avoids 
a “one-size-fits-all” with respect to when gas collection is warranted. This will be even more 
important into the future as we see greater diversion of organics from landfills. .In addition, we expect 
use of a measurement-based approach, as opposed to modeling, will provide a more reliable 
assessment of emission fluxes, which is particularly important in cases where the results of the 
available models appear flawed. 

All of the undersigned organizations recommended that the Agency’s Tier 4 approach be modified to 
allow for a single, ten-day corrective action period to remedy each exceedance of the 500 part per 
million (ppm) threshold detected during a Tier 4 monitoring event. 

We also urged EPA to delete the specific wind speed criteria and maintain the current Subpart WWW 
surface monitoring provisions for the performance of Tier 4 (i.e., “typical meteorological conditions”). 

i he comments irom states and other public organizations overwhelmingly supported the proposed Tier 
4 to determine the appropriate timing for installation and removal ofGCCS. The public entities 
included NAACA, and the States of Delaware, Iowa, Kentucky, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma and 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00064 



Pennsylvania, the Palm Beach Solid Waste Authority, four counties in Wisconsin, the Texas SWANA 
chapter and the SBA. The Environmental Defense Fund also commented in support of Tier 4, 
although they recommended a lower threshold than EPA proposed. The public organizations all 
supported the EPA proposed threshold of 500 ppm, and elimination of the wind speed limit on use of 
Tier 4. NACAA and the state and local government commenters discussed the potential 
implementation barrier the wind speed requirement would pose for using Tier 4. The vast majority of 
the public organizations, including NACAA also commented in favor of EPA including a brief, one¬ 
time corrective action period (e.g., ten-day) to remedy exceedances that can be addressed with simple 
corrections to landfill cover, or adjustments of the existing GCCS. 

We Strongly Support EPA’s Proposed Subcategory for Closed Landfills 

The undersigned organizations continue to support the proposed subcategory for closed landfills and 
the proposed expansion of the subcategory to include landfills that close (cease accepting waste) within 
13 months after publication of the final EG rules in the Federal Register. It is critical that landfill 
owners that are planning to cease accepting waste have the necessary time to meet all of the criteria 
and submit the necessary documentation for a “closed landfill” designation. Closed landfills that are 
required to control emissions under the existing EG or NSPS WWW would continue to operate the 
facilities, including GCCS, and reduce emissions in accordance with these rales. 

In our review of the comments, none of the 15 state and local regulatory agencies that submitted 
formal comments, opposed the proposed closed landfill subcategory, nor did NACAA in its formal 
comments. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP) and the SBA 
affirmatively supported the closed landfill subcategory. PA DEP recommended that EPA expand the 
closed landfill subcategory to allow MSW owners to close within 13 months of final rule publication. 
The Small Business Administration stated that EPA should allow more landfills to close up until the 
state or Federal regulations implementing the revised EG are effective, particularly as EPA provided 
no practical notice to entities when they proposed the closed landfill subcategory that the cut-off date 
would be 7/17/2014. 

Based on gas generation model results for closed landfills that report emissions to federal GHG 
reporting program, we estimate the proposed change to reduce non-methane organic compound 
(NMOC) threshold from 50 Mg to 40 Mg will prolong the requirement to operate GCCS another five 
years, and impose significant costs on landfills at the end of life. Reducing the threshold to 34 
Mg/year will prolong operations by eight years. 

Many closed landfills struggle to maintain sufficient gas flow to operate their control systems under 
the 50 Mg/year threshold. At a lower NMOC threshold, landfill owner/operators will need to use 
increasing amounts of fossil fuel to maintain flare operation. This increases GHG emissions, which 
conflicts with the Administration’s Methane Reduction Plan. 

Closed landfills do not generate revenue and many are owned by municipalities, which must pass new 
costs on to their local taxpayers. Closed site compliance costs are formulated based on settled 
expectations that new requirements (i.e., lower NMOC threshold) will not be triggered in the absence 
of a reopening or an expansion. Absent the proposed subcategory, including the 13-month timeframe 
expansion, closed landfill facilities will face significantly increased compliance costs and 
administrative burdens. 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00065 






We Support Streamlining the Design Plan Approval and Update Process 


Our organizations supported EPA’s conclusion that review and approval of design plans is clearly a 



estimated that only 40 percent of their landfills operate pursuant to an approved design plan, and 
together the two companies own and operate about 50 percent of the MSW lan d fill s in the U.S, Given 
this track record, we strongly support the Agency finalizing a process that eliminates the need for state 
approval of plans, which is a system that has simply not worked. Instead, state and local agencies and 
landfill owner/operators should be allowed to obtain and rely upon third-party professional engineer 
(PE) certification of design plans and revisions in lieu of an agency approval process. Certified plans 
may be maintained onsite for inspection and/or submitted to the implementing agency. 


Subpart WWW in discussing design plan approval in Section 60.752 states, “Because of the many site- 
specific factors involved with landfill gas system design, alternative systems may be necessary. A wide 
variety of system designs are possible, such as vertical wells, combination horizontal and vertical 
collection systems, or horizontal trenches only, leachate collection components, and passive systems. ” 
Mo other NSPS rule includes such a statement about site-specific design variables, and this statement 
supports need for the PE review and certification rather than relying on agency staff unfamiliar with 
the highly site-specific nature of GCCS design. 


A process that relies on independent PE certification would reduce administrative burdens on state 
agencies, while of fering greater regulatory certainty for the regulated community and public. Further, 
use of state-licensed PEs would simplify the process. Landfill owner/operators have ready access to 
third-party PEs, who have the requisite experience and expertise in GCCS design, and state 
certification boards exist to oversee and license PEs. 


The vast majority of the state organizations that commented on EPA’s proposal for third-party 
verification of plans, including NACAA, opposed the proposal as we did. Most described third-party 
verification as expensive, burdensome and unnecessary. While a number of states were loath to give 
up their design plan approval authority saying it does not pose a burden, the nationwide record of 
implementing approvals does not support their argument. 

Furthermore, EPA and the delegated state agencies’ primary oversight of the GCCS system is not at 
the design plan stage, but rather through the permitting process when a landfill has triggered the need 
to install a GCCS. Landfills must apply to the regulators for a construction permit, and the state 
agency must permit control devices associated with the GCCS. This pe rmi tting authority gives states 
the best opportunity for oversight and approval. It is through permitting, as well as required wellhead 
pressure monitoring, surface emission monitoring, remediation of exceedances and required 
documentation of GCCS “as-built” conditions (all contained within required semi- annual reports), not 
review and approval of a conceptual design, which provides regulators ample oversight mechanisms to 
ensure GCCS is properly installed and operated. 

There is significant precedent for submission of site-specific regulatory plans with no requirement for 
Agency approval. In fact, the proposal to require Agency approval of the both the design plan and 
treatment system monitoring plan is inconsistent with numerous federal rules that instead require 
copies (of management, monitoring or operating plans) to be submitted to the agency (no approval 
required) and/or maintained on site for agency inspection: 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00066 




# 

m 

0 

m 

m 


m 

.« 

m 

n 

* 

0 


40 C.F.R. 98 Subpart A- GHG Mandatory Reporting Rule (GHG monitoring plan) 

40 C.F.R. 60 Subpart Ec - HMIWI (waste management plan) 

40 C.F.R. 60 Subpart F - Portand Cement Plants (monitoring plan) 

40 C.F.R. 60 Subpart Ja - Petroleum Refineries (flare management plan) 

40 C.F.R. 60 Subpart Ka - Storage Vessels (operations and maintenance plan) 

40 C.F.R. 60 Subpart Y - Coal Preparation and Processing Plants (fugitive dust emissions 
control plan) 

40 C.F.R. 60 Subpart GG - Stationary Gas Turbines (parameter monitoring plan) 

40 C.F.R. 60 Subparts W, VVa - Equipment Leaks SOCMI (monitoring and inspection plans 
for pumps, valves, closed vent systems) 

40 C.F.R. 60 Subpart AAA - Residential Wood Heaters (Manufacturer’s Quality Assurance 
Plan: note this plan is third-party certified) 

40 C.F.R. 60 Subpart QQQ - Petroleum Refinery Wastewater Systems (plans/specification for 
various component or system design) 

40 C.F.R. 60 Subpart AAAA - Small MWC Units (materials separation plan) 

40 C.F.R. 60 Subpart CCCC - CISWI (waste management plan) 

40 C.F.R. 60 Subpart DDDD - CISWI EG model rule (control plan, waste management plan) 
40 C.F.R. 60 Subpart EEEE - OSWI (waste management plan) 

40 C.F.R. 60 Subpart FFFF - OSWI EG Model rule (waste management plan) 

40 C.F.R. 60 Subpart IIII - Stationary Compression Ignition Internal Combustion Engines 
(maintenance plan) 

40 C.F.R. 60 Subpart JJJJ- Stationary Spark Ignition Internal Combustion Engines 
(maintenance plan) 

40 C.F.R. 60 Subpart KKKK - Stationary Combustion Turbines (quality assurance plan, 
parametric monitoring plan) 

40 C.F.R. 60 Subpart LLLL - Sewage Sludge Incineration Units (fugitive emissions 
monitoring plan) 

40 C.F.R. 60 Subpart MMMM - SSIU EG Model Rule (control plan) 

40 C.F.R. 60 Subpart OOOO - Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production, Transmission and 
Distribution (inspection and maintenance plan) 

40 C.F.R. 60 Subpart QQQQ - Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces 
(Manufacturer’s quality assurance plan: note this plan is third-party certified) 

40 C.F.R. 60 Subpart TTTT - GHGs for EGUs (monitoring plan) 

40 C.F.R. 63 Subpart A - General NESHAPs Provisions (SSM plan) 

40 C.F.R. 63 Subpart EEE - Haz Waste Combustors (emergency safety vent operating plan, 
Operations and Maintenance Plan, Feedstream analysis plan) 

40 C.F.R. 63 Subpart HHH - Natural Gas Transmission and Storage (inspection and 
maintenance plan for control devices, site-specific monitoring design, data collection, and QA 
plan for monitoring control device) 

40 C.F.R. 63 Subpart LLL: Portland Cement (site specific monitoring plan 

40 C.F.R. 63 Subpart OOO: Manufacture of Amino/Phenolic Resins (monitoring plan for leak 

detection, gas stream flow determination plan) 

40 C.F.R. 63 Subpart QQQ: Primary Copper Smelting (Operations and maintenance plan for 
each capture and control device) 

40 C.F.R. 63 Subpart RRR: Secondary Aluminum Production (operations, maintenance and 
monitoring (OM&M) Plan for capture/control systems) 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00067 








• 40 CJF.R. 63 Subpart TTT: Primary Lead Smelting (corrective action plan) 

• 40 C.F.R. 63 Subpart VVV: POTWs (inspection and monitoring plan to comply with the 
standard) 

• 40 CJF.R, 63 Subpart XXX: Ferroalloys Production (process fugitive ventilation design plan, 
outdoor fugitive dust plan, site-specific monitoring plan for CMS) 

• 40 CJF.R. 63 Subpart GGGG: Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production (plan for 
demonstrating compliance) 

• 40 CJF.R. 63 Subpart HHHH: Wet-formed Fiberglass Mat Production (OM&M Plan, 
performance evaluation plan) 

• 40 CJF.R. 63 Subpart IIII: Surface Coating of Automobile and Light Duty Trucks (work 
practice plan to minimize HAP emissions) 

• 40 C.F.R. 63 JJJJ: Paper and Other Web Coating (site-specific monitoring plan for capture 
system and control device; inspection and maintenance plan for catalytic oxidizer) 

• 40 C.F.R. 63 Subpart KKKK: Surface Coating of Metal Cans (Work practice plan; inspection 
and maintenance plan for catalytic oxidizer) 

• 40 C.F.R. 63 Subpart MMMM: Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products 
(work practice plan, site-specific inspection and maintenance plan for catalytic oxidizer) 

« 40 C.F.R. 63 Subpart NNMN: Surface Coating of Large Appliances (work practice plan, site- 

specific inspection and maintenance plan for catalytic oxidizer) 

• 40 C.F.R. 63 Subpart OOOO: Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles 
(work practice plan, sampling plan, and site-specific inspection and maintenance plan for 
catalytic oxidize, capture system monitoring plan) 

• 40 C.F.R. 63 Subpart PPPP: Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products (work practice plan, 
site-specific inspection and maintenance plan for catalytic oxidizer) 

• 40 C.F.R. 63 Subpart QQQQ: Surface Coating Wood Building Products (work practice plan, 
site-specific inspection and maintenance plan for catalytic oxidizer) 

• 40 C.F.R, 63 Subpart RRRR: Surface Coating of Metal Furniture (work practice plan, site- 
specific inspection and maintenance plan for catalytic oxidizer) 

• 40 C.F.R. 63 Subpart SSSS: Surface Coating of Metal Coil (capture system monitoring plan, 
site-specific inspection and maintenance plan for catalytic oxidizer) 

• 40 C.F.R. 63 Subpart TTTT: Leather finishing (Compliance demonstration plan) 

• 40 C.F.R, 63 Subpart IJIJLJU: Cellulose Products (site specific monitoring plan for CMS) 

• 40 C.F.R. 63 Subpart VVW: Boat Manufacturing (implementation plan for open molding 
operations) 

• 40 C.F.R. 63 Subpart ZZZZ: Stationary RICE (site-specific monitoring plan for CPMS, 
maintenance plan) 

• 40 C.F.R. 63 Subpart FFFFF: Integrated Iron and Steel (Operations and maintenance 
plan,63.7834) 

• 40 C.F.R, 63 Subpart JJJJJ : Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing (Operation, 
Maintenance and Monitoring Plan) 

• 40 C.F.R. 63 Subpart KKRKK: Clay Ceramics Manufacturing (Operation, Maintenance and 
Monitoring (OM&M) Plan) 

• 40 C.F.R. 63 Subpart LLLLL: Asphalt Processing and Roofing Manufacturing (site-specific 
monitoring plan) 

• 40 C.F.R. Subpart PPPPP: Engine Test Cells (inspection and maintenance plan) 

• 40 C.F.R. 63 Subpart SSSSS: Refractory Products Manufacturing (OM&M Plan) 

• 40 C.F.R. 63 Subpart TTTTT: Primary Magnesium Refining (operations and maintenance plan) 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00068 



• 40 C.F.R. 63 Subpart UUUUU: Coal and Oil-fired EGUs (site specific monitoring plan 
63.10000(d)) 

• 40 C.F.R. 63 Subpart BBBBBB: Gasoline Distribution bulk terminals, plants, and pipeline 
facilities (monitoring and inspection plan) 

• 40 C.F.R. 63 Subpart QQQQQQ: Wood preserving area sources (management practice plan) 

• 40C.F.R. 63 Subpart VVVVW: Chemical Manufacturing area sources (monitoring plan, 
includes O&M for control device) 

• 40 C.F.R. 63 YYYYYY: Ferroalloys Production facilities for area sources (site-specific 
monitoring plan) 

• 40 C.F.R. 63 AAA A AAA: Asphalt Processing and roofing manufacturing area sources (site 
specific monitoring plan) 

Despite the numerous regulatory precedents noted above, should EPA decide to maintain the 
requirement that state agencies approve design plans and revisions, we strongly recommend that the 
Agency incorporate language that provides for automatic approval of plans should a state agency fail 
to approve or disapprove a plan or revision in writing within 90 days. A precedential example can be 
found at 40 C.F.R. 63 Subpart MMM Pesticide Active Ingredient Production, which provides the 
Agency 90 days to approve or disapprove a “precompliance plan” before it is deemed approved. 

We Strongly Support the EPA’s Proposed Definition of Landfill Gas Treatment 
Systems, but Oppose Proposed Agency Approval of Treatment Plans 

We support the Agency’s proposed definition of landfill gas, treatment system and believe it supports 
and promotes projects for beneficial use of landfill gas. However, we oppose the proposal to require 
agency approval of the treatment system, monitoring plan as part of the GCCS Design Plan. The 
requirement would create a new and unwarranted burden for the agencies, especially since the 
treatment systems are site-specific, tailored to the end user specifications, and highly technical. 

The Agency proposal is inconsistent with the federal rules listed above, which merely require copies 
(of management, monitoring or operating plans) be submitted to the agency or maintained on site for 
agency inspection. 

The landfill gas, treatment systems are not subject to emission limits or continuous emissions 
monitoring, yet EPA proposes to require agency approval, which is more stringent than what EPA has 
required for sources with actual HAP emission limits and continuous emissions monitoring 
requirements. We recommend EPA finalize a requirement to prepare a treatment system, monitoring 
plan and maintain a copy on site for agency inspection as has been promulgated in so many other 
NSPS and NESHAP rules. 

Peer Reviewed Data Show Landfill Gas Collection Efficiencies Ranging from 75 
Percent to Over 95 Percent are Defensible 

In response to the draft NSPS for landfills, the EPA received comments regarding the collection 
efficiency of GCCSs. Collection efficiency is an important factor used in calculating the emissions of 
NMOCs, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and greenhouse gases (GHG) from landfills. Docketed 
comments on the proposed NSPS/EG rules (see EPA-HQ-OAR-2014- 0451 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003- 
0215) mention collection efficiency at landfills is lower than recent data suggest. Specifically 
collection efficiencies could be as low as 20 percent (Sierra Club), or 35 percent (ERC, Covanta). 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00069 


We have reviewed these comments and determined that they do not provide a representative picture of 
the collection efficiency seen at most landfills operating with current industry state-of-the-practice 
systems and procedures, specifically those used for compliance with the NSPS/EG. 

Inadequacy of Cited Studies 

The studies cited by the Sierra Club, ERC, and Covanta do not support claims that typical methane 
capture is as low as 20 or 35 percent. The studies are not representative of collection systems operated 
in compliance with the current and proposed MSW Landfill NSPS or EG rales. 

Sierra Club Sources 

The Sierra Club letter suggests that lifetime LFG collection rates are as low as 20 percent. They 
reference the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (FAR), 
which states, '‘Some sites may have less efficient or only partial gas extraction systems and there are 
fugitive emissions from landfilled waste prior to and after the implementation of active gas extraction; 
thus estimates of ‘lifetime’ recovery efficiencies may be as low as 20%.” However, it is clear in the 
FAR that the 20 percent lifetime recovery rate is not referring to a NSPS compliant system. The FAR 
estimates collection efficiencies across a broad range of landfills worldwide from highly developed 
countries with stringent landfill standards (e.g., the U.S.) and far less developed countries with no 
sanitary landfills or landfill regulatory standards. 

The Sierra Club also cites comments from Hans Oonk in the “Expert Review of First Order Draft of 
Waste Chapter to IPCCS Fourth Assessment Report”; however, his comments confirm that the low end 
of the gas capture range is not comparable to the collection efficiency achieved at landfills regulated 
under the current NSPS. He evaluated performance of gas collection systems that were installed at 
Dutch landfills, not for regulatory purposes, but only to recover gas for energy. Hans Oonk concluded 
that LFG collection for energy recovery coupled with the requirement to flare additional LFG is a 
highly effective option for controlling LFG emissions. This hybrid energy and flare system is the 
industry standard throughout the United States. 

Furthermore, lifetime emissions of 80 percent of the gas from a landfill as posited by Covanta, ERC 
and Sierra Club would almost certainly make compliance with the NSPS/EG impossible. Such high 
emission rates would result in methane detections during required surface monitoring, and in turn 
requiring corrective action and expansion of the GCCS to lower surface emissions. Even absent the 
regulatory requirements for monitoring, the emissions would likely result in significant odors and 
complaints to local agencies. 

The Sierra Club letter claims, “no gas collection can be functional until later when the cell Is full and 
low permeable [sic] final cover is installed.” In fact, hundreds of landfills have placed waste in areas 
with existing gas collection. While this practice may require gas systems to undergo repair, the Sierra 
Club’s claims that “gas collection is also not functional prior to the installation of the final cover,” is 
simply wrong, and lacks a fundamental understanding of how GCCSs are design, installed, operated, 
and expanded as landfills grow. 

The 20 percent recovery value cited in these comments is not representative of U.S. landfills. It may 
be representative of the average of unregulated landfills worldwide as part of the low end of the range 
of collection efficiencies, but federal and state landfill requirements results in significantly higher 
collection efficiency rates at U.S. landfills. 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00070 


Covanta and ERC Sources 


The Covanta and ERC letter cites five sources for the range of collection efficiencies, including: 

1. Environmental Com m i ssioner of Ontario, Ecolssues: GHG11 Landfill Methane, 
http://ecoissues.ca/GHGll Landfill Methane 

2. Fischedick M. et al. (2014) Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change, Contribution 
of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, 
NY, USA. 

3. Levis, J., M.A. Barlaz (2014) Landfill Gas Monte Carlo Model Documentation and Results, 

4. CalRecycle 2012, Review of Waste-to-Energy and Avoided Landfill Methane Emissions. 

5. Documentation for Greenhouse Gas Emission and Energy Factors Used in the Waste Reduction 
Model (WARM) 

We have reviewed each of the cited sources for its appropriateness and representativeness for 
determining the collection efficiency of landfills in the United States subject to the NSPS/EG. 

The first of these citations is a website for the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario (ECO). The 
ECO cites some studies of LFG collection efficiency and concludes that the default collection 
efficiency of 75 percent used by the EPA and others is overstated (note: landfills in Canada are not 
subject to the more stringent requirements of the NSPS/EG). However, the ECO also notes that the 
IPCC states that LFG collection could be above 90 percent. We note that the comments by Sierra 
Club, ERC and Covanta omitted the upper end of the range of landfill collection efficiencies cited by 
the same sources they reference. 

The second source (Fischedick M. et al.) states that methane collection efficiencies range from 50 
percent to 95 percent. The low collection efficiency rate of 50 percent is appropriate for some landfill 
collection systems that are not designed for compliance with the NSPS/EG, but are operated to achieve 
odor control or mitigate LFG migration. However, this type of system is typically found at small or 
closed landfills t ha t account for a relatively small amount of GHG emissions, and where a 
comprehensive GCCS would be cost prohibitive. 

The third citation (Levis and Barlaz) uses models to analyze methane recovery from different waste 
types under varied landfilling conditions. While the study indicated that over 80 percent of methane 
could be emitted, this low methane recovery rate applied to only one waste type (grass clippings), 
which is a rapidly degrading waste disposed in a bioreactor landfill. Further, the 80 percent emission 
rate is a worst-case, lifecycle scenario, in a modeled situation with delayed collection. Overall, the 
methane recovery rate for landfills in the model scenarios for landfills receiving more than 110 
centimeters of precipitation per year were greater than 60 percent, and greater than 70 percent for 
landfills receiving less than 110 centimeters of precipitation per year. 

The fourth citation (CalRecycle) is a study of a single landfill in California, which was subject to 
neither the federal NSPS/EG nor the California AB 32 Landfill Methane Rule (LMR). It is therefore 
inappropriate to apply conclusions from this single site study to sites complying with NSPS and the 
LMR. In fact, quite the opposite, this study provides support for why the NSPS/EG rule can be 
effective at reducing LFG emissions as compared to unregulated conditions. 

The fifth citation (WARM guidance) draws on some of the same work as the Levis and Barlaz study 
discussed above. The WARM guidance determined that better than 50 percent LFG recovery was 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00071 



typical for the national average for most waste types with yard trimmings being the exception. TMs 
value in the WARM guidance does not support assertions of a LFG recovery rate as low as 35 percent 
being representative. The “typical” and "aggressive gas collection” scenarios yield far greater 
collection efficiencies. 

The Covanta and KMC letters also cite Comparison of First-Order-Decay Modeled and Actual Field 
Measured Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Methane Data (Aminf Reinhard, and Niskanen, 2013, 

Waste Management VoL 33). This study found that the first-order-decay (FOD) model used to model 
landfill emissions can underestimate methane generation. However, FOD modeling for GHG emission 
calculations is frequently inaccurate, providing methane generation estimates that are both too high and 
too low, depending on the landfill Furthermore, the landfills evaluated in the study are Danish, and 
results may not be representative of either the typical waste stream in the U.S. or landfill operations 
subject to U.S. regulatory requirements. 

Available Collection. Efficiency Data 

The document entitled Current MSWIndustry Position and State-of-the-Practice on LFG Collection 
Efficiency , Methane Oxidation, and Carbon Sequestration in Landfills (SWIGS, 2009) was developed 
for EPA arid reviewed seven studies of LFG collection efficiency. The analysis distinguished between 
study data from landfills with collection systems and cover practices compliant with the NSPS/EG 
rules, and data from landfills not meeting those regulatory standards. Not surprisingly, collection 
efficiencies were generally lower in non-compliant landfills than collection efficiencies at NSPS- 
compliant landfills. The SWIGS study concluded that the most important factors affecting collection 
efficiency were cover type and extent of GCCS installation. These conclusions and an approach for 
estimating collection efficiency based on selected cover types and scope of GCCS 'installation was 
adopted with only minor modifications by the EPA for landfills reporting under the federal Mandatory 
Reporting Rule for GHG (GHGRP) (40 CUR. Part 98, Subpart HH). 

A more recent study, The Estimated 100-Year Collection Efficiency for U.S. Landfills (Stege, A, 
Proceedings of 2013 SWANA Landfill Gas Conference), reviewed typical landfill operating practices 
throughout the U.S. The study compiled data from the EPA’s Landfill Methane Outreach Program 
(LMOP) and grouped landfills by owner/operator — large private, small private, public, and location - 
with those operating in the California South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and 
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) separated due to their more stringent 
regulatory requirements. The study found that the 100-year LFG collection efficiency for typical 
landfills across the country was in excess of 80 percent. 

In addition to the SWIGS and Stege studies, the most recent direct measurement studies indicate that 
collection and control efficiencies are higher than the assumptions used in FOD models (De La Cruz et 
al, 2015 draft in final EPA review) (Walker et al, 2014) (Shan et al, 2013) (Green et al, 2012) 
(Goldsmith et al, 2012) (Chanton et al, 2011) (Green et al, 2009)). Direct measurement studies have 
also shown that inventory models used by regulators significantly over-estimate landfill methane 
emissions, as summarized below: 


• (Shan et al, 2013) determined collection efficiencies of 91% to >99% based on. statistically 
representative flux chamber measurements at four large California Landfills. 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00072 


• (Walker et al., 2014) applied direct measurement of methane emissions and oxidation from 
(Goldsmith et al., 2012) for five California Landfills, four with Mediterranean climates and one 
with an arid desert climate. Control efficiency for the five landfills ranged from 83-88%. The 
effects of coverage of the landfill gas collection system and relative size of the working face 
and daily cover areas was analyzed and negligible. 

• (De La Cuz et al., 2015) compared direct measurement of methane emissions from a humid 
landfill located in Southeastern U.S. with waste aged less than three years to modeled 
emissions and determined the FOD models predicted 4-17 times high emission rates than 
measured. 

• Monster et. al. (2015) showed that for 15 Danish landfills, model-predicted emissions were on 
an average, a factor of 5 greater than the measured emissions. 

• (Green et al., 2012) compared direct measurement of four closed landfills without gas 
collection and found that the measured emissions were only 33%, 12%, 44%, and 17% of the 
emission rate predicted by the GHGRP (EPA MRR in table below). The corresponding over¬ 
prediction of models was by factors of 2.3 to 8.3 greater than the measured emissions. The 
SWICS methodology (SCS, 2009) which applies a 30% oxidation rate for soil mixtures 
lik ewise predicted much lower emission rates than the GHGRP: 



Center Point Seneca East South Wells Springfield 

Figure L Comparison oi*Methane Emission Results from CRJDS Measurements and Models 

(error bars represent lsd) 


• Two southern California Landfills were evaluated by research aircraft taking methane 
measurements in (Peischl, J. et al., 2013). Peischl et al. applied the measured emission rate to 
each site’s footprint and methane collection and combustion data to estimate collection 
efficiencies of 73% and 77%. Applying an oxidation factor of 38 percent results in control 
efficiencies of 77% and 80%. These results are considered a lower bound by the researchers 
because of limitations in accounting for other sources of methane and potential atmospheric 
effects. Note that (Shan et al., 2013) estimated collection efficiencies at one of these landfills 
by two different methods of 93.1% and 95.9%. 

• A study of three landfills (humid climate located in Southeastern U.S.) measured collection 
efficiency (ignoring oxidation) based on EPA Method OTM-10 of 73% (70/77), 80.5% (77/89), 
and 38% (Arcadis, 2012). Waste Management (Kelly et al., 2012) raised the following 
significant issues with the results from Landfill B (site with 38%): 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00073 












o Bias toward high methane based on location with respect to an adjacent source (hog farm) 
and location downwind of LFG wells; 

o The landfill installed a new gas collection system shortly after the measurements, so GCCS 
in place at time of study was not representative of modem landfills with systems operating 
in accordance with NSPS/EG; and 

o There was only one measurement season (summer) as contrasted with the other two 
landfills, which were separately measured over two seasons. 

The results of direct measurement studies refute docketed comments (EPA-HQ-0AR-2014- 0451 and 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215) that LFG collection efficiencies are much lower (about 35%-70% over the 
life of the landfill) than default values in inventory models used by regulatory agencies. Further, they 
refute comments that claim models of landfill gas emissions often result in significant under-estimation 
of emissions. There is neither a technical basis, nor direct measurement studies to underpin the claims 
that typical collection efficiencies are only 35-70%. Furthermore, methane oxidation was not 
incorporated into the study underpinning these comments, and should be for a more accurate 
assessment of landfill emissions. 


Consistency with Recent EPA Regulations 

As noted above, the EPA adopted a modified version of the SWICS methodology for calculating site¬ 
wide LFG collection efficiency at landfills under the GHGRP. That methodology uses a collection 
efficiency of 60 percent for area with daily cover, 75 percent for areas with intermediate cover, 95 
percent tor areas with final cover, and zero (0) for areas without gas collection. The collection 
efficiencies already adopted by EPA in federal regulation are significantly higher than the collection 
efficiencies of 20 and 35 percent advanced by the Sierra Club, Covanta, and ERC. 

Dire c t Mea surement 

t inaily, Covanta suggested in comments that direct measurement of landfill emissions should be 
incorporated as a requirement in the final standards. The comment letter notes several studies that 
have used remote sensing technology such as Vertical Radial Plume Mapping (VRPM) and Other Test 
Method 10 (OTM-10) to measure landfill area emissions. 

While the industry agrees that significant fieldwork has been conducted using remote sensing 
technology, the Covanta comments minimize the challenges in broadly using these methodologies at 
landfills, for example, the Covanta-funded study, Quantifying Methane Abatement Efficiency at Three 
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (EPA/600/R-11/033, January 2012) characterizes OTM-10 as a 
‘breakthrough in technology 5 ’ that has “resulted in the ability to more accurately quantify” emissions, 
but fails to note that the technology requires extensive preparation and characterization of the 
topography and meteorology at subject landfills. Covanta also references the study to argue for 
assuming lower LFG collection efficiency rates, although the study does not provide sufficient support. 

Waste Management (WM) provided comments to EPA’s Office of Research & Development on the 
study in a letter dated September 28, 2012 (Kelly et al., 2012). The letter summarized key technical 
concerns including first, that the limited scope of the research, summarizing five measurement 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00074 



campaigns at only three southeastern landfills, does not provide a sound basis for the document’s broad 
policy conclusions and proposed next steps. Second, WM voiced significant scientific and technical 
concerns about the measurement methods and physical conditions at the sites, which call into question 
the validity of the reported measurements. 

At EPA’s request, WM in a letter to the Office of Air Quality, Planning and Standards, assessed the 
appropriateness of developing regulatory requirements for the use of the OTM-IO direct measurement 
technique (August 23, 2011). WM described key challenges in using the technique including that 
OTM 10 measurements can assess only 5 to 20 percent of the total landfill surface. This makes the 
technique subject to criticism regarding its spatial representativeness in determining emission rates. 
WM also described the difficulty in the set-up and use of the TDL equipment due to the complex 
topography associated with landfills and the strong influence weather (e.g., wind direction and speed, 
precipitation, barometric pressure) plays on the ability to obtain usable TDL readings. The large 
source size, heterogeneous source area, and interference from proximate or distant sources of 
emissions (from an adjacent landfill cell outside the measurement area or a wholly separate site) can 
create very significant uncertainties in measuring methane emissions at a landfill. Additionally, the 
process of direct measurement is expensive and may prove cost-prohibitive for widespread practical 
application. 


References 

1. SWICS, 2009. Current MSW Industry Position and State-of-the-Practice on LFG Collection 
Efficiency, Methane Oxidation, and Carbon Sequestration in Landfills 

2. Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, Ecolssues: GHG11 Landfill Methane Webpage, 
http://ecoissues.ca/GHG 1 l Landfill Methane, accessed January 18, 2016. 

3. Fischedick M. et al. (2014) Industry. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. 
Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental 
Panel on Climate Change 

4. Levis, J., M.A. Barlaz (2014) Landfill Gas Monte Carlo Model Documentation and Results 

5. CalRecycle (2012) CalRecycle Review of Waste-to-Energy and Avoided Landfill Methane 
Emissions 

6. Documentation for Greenhouse Gas Emission and Energy Factors Used in the Waste Reduction 
Model (WARM) 

7. Amini, H.R., D. Re inh art, A. Niskanen (2013) Comparison Of First-Order-Decay Modeled And 
Actual Field Measured Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Methane Data, Waste Management 33. 

8. California Air Resources Board (CARB 2009), Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for 
the Proposed Regulation to Reduce Methane Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, 
Appendix D: Evaluation of Landfill Gas Collection Efficiency, May 2009. 

9. Alex Stege, Estimated 100-Year Collection Efficiency for U.S. Landfills.Proceedings 2013 
SWANA LFG Symposium 

10. Shan, J., Iacoboni, M., and Ferrante, R. (2013); “Greenhouse Gas Emissions from three 
Southern California Landfill Sites”, Solid Waste Association ofNorth America (SWANA) 36th 
A nn ual Landfill Gas Symposium, Las Vegas, NV. 

11. Walker, S.D., Green, R.B., and Sullivan, P.S. (June 2014); California Landfill Methane Control 
Efficiency Based on Recent Direct Measurement Studies; Global Waste Symposium 2014, 
Orlando, Florida 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00075 



12. De La Cruz, F., Green, R., Hater, G., Chanton, J., Thoma, E., Harvey, T., Barlaz, M. (in final 
EPA review, 2015); Landfill Methane Emissions: A Comparison of Field Measurement to Gas 
Production Models. 

13. M0nster J., Samuelsson, J., Kjeldsen, P., Scheutz, C. (2015); Quantification of Methane 
Emissions from 15 Danish Landfills Using the Mobile Tracer Dispersion Method. Waste 
Manage. 2015, 35 (0), 177-186 

14. Green, R., Swan, N., Thoma, E., Footer, T., Chanton, J., Hater, G.; (2012); Measured and 
Modeled Methane Emissions at Closed MSW Landfills Without Gas Collection; Proceedings 
of the Global Waste Management Symposium, San Antonio, Texas. 

15. Peischl, J. et al. (2013); Quantifying Sources of Methane Using Light Alkanes in the Los 
Angeles Basin, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 118, 4974-4990. 

16. ARCADIS U.S., Inc. (January 2012); Final Report- EPA/600/R-11/033, Quantifying Methane 
Abatement Efficiency at Three Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, Prepared for: Susan A. 
Thomeloe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Triangle Park, NC 27711, Office of 
Research and Development National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Air Pollution 
Prevention and Control Division Research. 

17. Kelly, K., and Van Kolken Banister, A. (2012); September 28, 2012 comment letter to Richard 
Shores, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on “Quantifying Methane Abatement 
Efficiency at Three MSW Landfills, EPA/600/R-11/033. 


Shorter Lag Times for Wet Landfills Are Not Warranted or Justified 

We are concerned that EPA is continuing to target “wet” landfills for additional requirements under the 
proposed NSPS/EG. In our comments on the ANPRM in 2014, we explained why EPA should not 
reduce the initial lag times for GCCS installation at landfills located in wet climates, landfills that 
recirculate leachate, or landfills that add other liquids to accelerate waste decomposition. We 
highlighted ambiguity in the definition of wet landfills, the oversimplification that results from 
definitions that rely primarily on measured precipitation and leachate levels, and the potential overlap 
in requirements between the Landfill NSPS/EG and the Subpart AAAA NESHAP. 

We believe EPA’s proposed definition of wet landfills focuses to narrowly on precipitation and 
leachate variables, and fails to consider the many other factors that influence moisture content in 
landfills. Our comments noted that precipitation is not well correlated with landfill moisture levels. 
Other factors, like waste acceptance rates, the amount of moisture in the disposed waste, cell size, 
cover type, and cover timing also have a significant impact on landfill moisture levels. We strongly 
urge EPA to avoid simplistic definitions that fail to account for the complexity of the landfill 
environment. EPA should not define landfills as “wet” based only on precipitation of over 40 inches 
per year. EPA should base its approach on sound science and analysis. 

Recent research efforts conducted by EPA, in cooperation with solid waste industry and academic 
researchers (De la Cruz, F.B., Green, R., Hater, G., Chanton, J., Thoma, E., Harvey, T., and Barlaz, 

M., Comparison of Field Measurements to Methane Emissions Models at a New Landfill) at a landfill 
located in a wet climate (Southeastern U.S.) indicate that FOD models over-predict emissions from 
waste that is less than four years old by at least a factor of four. The study, to be submitted to the 
Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, compared field measurements (tracer correlation 
and eddy covariance) to FOD models using a k value of roughly 0.05. The study authors concluded 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00076 


that additional field data on methane production and emissions is necessary to establish a path forward 
to updating the model parameters and methodology for estimating emissions. 

We are also concerned that EPA has failed to provide any discussion of the cost and cost effectiveness 
of shorter lag time requirements. From our review of other proposed changes to the NSPS and EG, we 
have concluded that the more stringent requirements come with significantly higher costs. EPA should 
not finalize shorter lag times at wet landfills without providing additional information to the regulated 
community and other stakeholders. 

Issues Associated with Applicability and Effectiveness Dates, and Implementation 
Issues 

EPA has proposed to change the applicability date from 5/30/1991 to 7/14/2014 for new or modified 
sources. With this approach, very few sites will be initially subject to the proposed NSPS (Subpart 
XXX) and majority of sites will be subject to the proposed EG rule (Subpart Cf). 

EPA has not followed a consistent approach historically in regards to updating NSPS rules. In some 
cases, EPA has updated the existing NSPS rule and retained existing applicability dates (40 C.F.R. 60 
Subpart Eb , 40 C.F.R. 60 Subpart F). In other cases, EPA has retained the existing NSPS and 
applicability date (40 C.F.R. Subpart G: August 17, 1971 - October 14, 2011) and created a new NSPS 
rule and applicability dates for affected sources (40 C.F.R. Subpart Ga: after October 2011). 

EPA has never created a new EG rule to replace an existing EG rule. Further, EPA has updated EG 
rules but has not changed the applicability date (40 C.F.R. 60 Subpart Cb 2 ). 

EPA has now aligned the rule requirements and rulemaking schedule for the NSPS and the EG so there 
is no substantive difference in requirements between the rules. If EPA were to retain the 1991 
applicability date for NSPS sites, then the proposed EG (Subpart Cf), including the Closed Landfill 
subcategory, could be incorporated in the NSPS (Subpart XXX) and EPA could retain the existing EG, 
(Subpart Cc) for sites that did not open or modify (expand the landfill) since 1991. This approach 
would significantly reduce regulatory burden for state and local agencies (they would not be required 
to prepare state plans or revise existing state rules) and EPA would not be obligated to prepare, issue 
and implement a Federal Plan. 

Effective Date of Final NSPS Rule and Compliance Dates 

There is no issue with the effective date of the NSPS rule as long as EPA includes clear and reasonable 
compliance timelines for submitting new or revised reports. The proposed NSPS rule includes a 90- 
day compliance timeframe for submitting design capacity reports and NMOC emission rate reports, 
which is consistent with WWW. The rule continues to assume these are first time reports and does not 
address whether sites already subject to NSPS WWW requirements must re-submit reports. 

Design Capacity Reports 

Sites that commenced operation prior to date of the final NSPS XXX rule (and submitted design 
capacity reports per NSPS WWW/EG Cc requirements) should be exempt from re-submitting design 
capacity reports. The design capacity report is required only to determine whether a site is subject to 


1 FEDERAL REGISTER Vol. 71, No. 90 May 10, 2006 pp. 27324-27348 

2 Ibid 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00077 









the NSPS/EG rule and Title V requirements. This report is not relevant for sites where NSFS/EG and 
Title ¥ requirements have already been triggered by an exceedance of the design capacity exemption. 
Furthermore, preparing and submitting the report would add unnecessary burden to the sites and 
regulatory agencies. 

NMOC Emission Rate Reports 

Sites that installed GCCS under NSPS WWW/EG Cc requirements should be exempt from re¬ 
submitting the NMOC emission rate report. The emission rate report is required only to determine 
when the site must install a gas system to control 'NMOC emissions. This report is not relevant for 
landfills with existing NSP S/EG -required GCCSs and preparation and submittal would add 
unnecessary burden to the sites and regulatory agencies. 

For sites that are currently subject to NSPS WWW but have not triggered NMOC threshold requiring 
GCCS installation, EPA should continue to require annual or 5-year periodic reports and allow sites to 
use valid test data for the reports. The rule should not require new Tier 2 or Tier 3 testing if the test 
data and supporting information is still valid. Sites should have the option to complete additional Tier 
2 or Tier 3 testing. Allowing sources to use previous emissions test results to demonstrate compliance 
with the NMOC threshold, if revised, is consistent with federal rules (40 C.F.R. 60 Subpart Ec) FR 
VoL 74, No. 192 October 6, 2009 pp. 51368-51418 

GCCS Design Plans and Gas Treatment System Monitoring Plans 

Sites that installed GCCS under NSPS WWW/EG Cc requirements should be exempt from re¬ 
submitting the GCCS Design Plan. The Design Plan is required only to present a conceptual design of 
the GCCS that was used as basis to install the existing GCCS; therefore this report is not relevant. 
Preparation and re-submittal would add unnecessary burden to the sites and regulatory agencies. 

EPA offers two criteria for when an affected source must update and submit its design plan: 1) within 
90 days of expanding operations to an area not previously covered by the design plan; and 2) prior to 
installing or expanding GCCS in a manner other than one described in a previously approved design 
plan. The criteria and timeframes appear reasonable; however, we again urge EPA to provide 
alternatives to agency approval of Design Plans given the vast number of plans that have received no 
formal agency approval, which results in compliance uncertainty. The existing rules already require 
WWW and EG sites to report expansions made to the GCCS on semi-annual basis and to update the 
as-built maps that reflect current GCCS operations. 

Currently, there is no compliance timeframe proposed in NSPS Subpart XXX for submitting a gas 
treatment, system monitoring plan. As this is a new proposed requirement, we are concerned that the 
proposed rule offers no transitional compliance period for existing sites with LFGTE projects that 
trigger Subpart XXX applicability upon expansion or modification. We recommend EPA allow for at 
least 120 days to prepare a treatment system monitoring plan. We again do not recommend EPA. 
require agency approval of the plans, as further described in previous comments and below. 

New Monitoring .an d Recordkeeping Requirements 

If EPA finalizes any changes to monitoring and/or recordkeeping requirements in the NSPS, sites that 
installed GCCS under WWW requirements will require lead time to install new equipment (where 
applicable), develop/implement new processes and train staff/third party contractors before the site can 
comply with the new requirements. It may not be possible for a site to comply immediately upon the 
publication date of the final NSPS rale nor should EPA expect a site to immediately comply where 
monitoring and/or recordkeeping requirements are revised. For example, changes to SEM 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00078 


requirements should be implemented in the subsequent calendar quarter after which the rules are 
published. Assuming the NSPS rale is published in July 2016, a site would implement any new SEM 
and recordkeeping requirements during the fourth quarter. 

The undersigned organizations appreciate your consideration of these supplemental comments and 
hope the Agency finds them useful as you finalize the MSW Landfill NSPS and EG rales. Please feel 
free to reach out to us if you have any questions. We look forward to continuing to work with you as 
we prepare to implement the new rules. 


Sincerely, 

Waste Management 

Republic Sendees 

Advanced Disposal 

SCS Engineers 

Weaver Consulting Group 

Cornerstone Environmental Group 

National Waste & Recycling Association 

Solid Waste Association of North America 

The Sanitation Districts of the County of Los Angeles 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00079 




17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005679-00080 




From: Dominguez, Alexander 

Location: Location: 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (North) - Room 3530 WJCN 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: National Association of Manufacturers 

Start Date/Time: Mon 7/10/2017 6:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Mon 7/10/2017 7:00:00 PM 


Location: 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (North) - Room 3530 WJCN 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your right as you 
exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call 202-564-1016 or 202-578-5985 


Request: 

Regulatory priorities - Details to follow 


Attendees: 

To follow - roughly 8 from NAM 


Contact: 

Rachel Jones 

Director, Energy and Resources Policy 
National Association of Manufacturers 



(202) 637-3175 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005680-00001 



From: Inge, Carolyn 

Location: DCRoomARN3500/OPEI 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Meeting with Canadian Energy 

Start Date/Time: Tue 4/4/2017 3:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Tue 4/4/2017 3:30:00 PM 


Would you set this meeting up from Samantha’s calendar? Thank you. 


Topic: Meeting with Canadian Energy 
Date: Tuesday, 4/4 
Time: 11:00 - 11:30 a.m. 

Location: 3500 WJC 

Required: Daugherty, Casie C a si e. D au gfa ertv @pri m e-p ol i e v. c om : Gabe.Rozsa@prime- 
policv.com 

Cc: Kime, Robin < Kime.Robin@epa.gov >: Germann, Sandy Germann.Sandv@epa.gov : 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your right as you 
exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 20 minutes prior to the meeting with photo 
IDs to clear Security. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all other 
matters call Robin Kime (202)564-6587. 


From: Rozsa, Gabe [mailto:Gabe.Rozsa@prime-policy.com~ 

Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2017 3:31 PM 
To: Jackson, Ryan <1 ackson.rvan@epa.gov > 

Subject: Canadian Energy 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005681-00001 



Ryan, 


I wanted to ask for your advice on whether a meeting with the Administrator or his senior staff 
might be possible to talk about North American energy integration and streamlining 
environmental reviews for cross border energy projects. The meeting would be on either April 4 
or 5 with a client who is a leader in the oil sands region of Alberta. As the Trump 
Administration and the Congress rethink the US energy policy, I know integration of North 
American energy, including the role of Canadian oil in helping to meet domestic needs and the 
role of pipelines like KXL is again be on the agenda. Although KXL finally is on track for 
approval, there remain many regulatory issues involved and likely other pipelines issues in the 
future raising issues to consider. We represent a group of Canadian oil companies that are 
drilling for oil in Alberta. Bill McCaffrey, the CEO of MEG Energy and the leading force 
behind our client, the In situ Oil Sands Alliance (IOSA), will be in DC for meetings on April 4 
and 5 and I was hoping to schedule time with you or someone you might recommend at EPA to 
discuss next steps toward better integration and North American energy independence. MEG 
and IOSA have done some pioneering work in the in situ process which is estimated to represent 
80% of the available Canadian oil sands resource. A little biographically information about Bill 
can be found here which summarizes an award he recently received for his dynamic leadership in 
energy issues including innovative development and transport of the resource. I also expect a 
few other executives from MEG and/or IOSA on the trip. 


Contact: 

Gabe Rozsa 
Managing Director 

1110 Vermont Avenue, NW | Suite 1000 | Washington, DC 20005 
202 530 4843 | Fax: 202 530 4800 | Cell: 202 701 7710 

www.prime-policv.com 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005681-00002 




From: Dominguez, Alexander 

Location: Location: 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (North) - Room 3528 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Farm Bureau /EPA 

Start Date/Time: Thur 6/29/2017 7:30:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Thur 6/29/2017 8:30:00 PM 


Location: 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (North) - Room 3528 WJCN 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your right as you 
exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call 202-564-1016 or 202-578-5985 


Request: 

To discuss WOTUS Step #2 

Attendees: 

Amanda Aspatore 

Vice President, Water Law & Policy 
National Mining Association 
202-463-2600 

aas patore@nma.org 


Chip Murray 

Vice President for Policy & General Counsel 
National Alliance of Forest Owners 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005682-00001 



202-747-0742 


cmurry@nafoalliance.org 
---., ( , v , 


Don Parrish 

Senior Director, Government Relations 
American Farm Bureau Federation 
202-316-3600 


Ellen Steen 

General Counsel & Secretary 
American Farm Bureau Federation 
202-406-3660 

esteem@fb.org 


Peter Tolsdorf 
Senior Counsel 
American Petroleum Institute 
202-682-8074 

tolsdorfp@api.org 

Thomas Ward 

Vice President, Legal Advocacy 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005682-00002 



National Association of Home Builders 


202-266-8230 

tward@nahb.org 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005682-00003 



From: Inge, Carolyn 

Location: 3513 A 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Paul Bailey with ACCCE 

Start Date/Time: Thur 3/30/2017 2:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Thur 3/30/2017 2:20:00 PM 


Notes: 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your right as you 
exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 20 minutes prior to the meeting with photo 
IDs to clear Security. 


EPA Contact: Robin Kime (202) 564-6587 or the main OP line (202) 564-4332 


> On Mar 26, 2017, at 7:17 AM, Dravis, Samantha < dravis.samantha@epa.qov > wrote: 

> 

> We have a big day Monday/Tuesday so it would have to be after that, probably 
Thursday. 

> 

> Sent from my iPhone 

> 

» On Mar 24, 2017, at 4:18 PM, Sechrist, Erica Ann < esechrist@orrick,com > wrote: 

>> 

» Hi Samantha, 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005683-00001 



» Paul Bailey with ACCCE was wondering if you have any time to meet next week. 
He's pretty open except Wednesday afternoon. 

>> 

» Thanks, 

» Erica 
>> 

» Sent from my iPhone 
>> 

» NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the 
transmission, and may be a communication privileged by law. If you received this e-mail 
in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly 
prohibited. Please notify us immediately of the error by return e-mail and please delete 
this message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. 

>> 

» For more information about Orrick, please visit 

http://www.omck.com<http://www,orrick,com/ >. 

>> 

> 


NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the 
transmission, and may be a communication privileged by law. If you received this e-mail 
in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly 
prohibited. Please notify us immediately of the error by return e-mail and please delete 
this message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. 


For more information about Orrick, please visit 

httpi//www.orrick.com<http://www. orrick.com/ >. 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005683-00002 



From: Dominguez, Alexander 

Location: 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (North) Please call 202-564-3164 (Room 3528) 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Alliance for Vehicle Efficiency 

Start Date/Time: Thur 6/22/2017 8:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Thur 6/22/2017 8:30:00 PM 


Make-up from May 23 


Attendees: 

• Jeff Breneman, Executive Director, Alliance for Vehicle Efficiency 

• Lee Janger, Director for Legislative and Regulatory, Alliance for Vehicle Efficiency 

• Stacey Bernards, Honeywell, Vice President for Government Relations 

• Erika Nielsen, BorgWarner, Director of Global Government Affairs 

• David Lancaster, BorgWarner, Senior Engineer 

• David Cetola, Johnson Matthey, Director of Government Affairs 

• Casey Westhoff, Umicore, Government Affairs 


Discussion Topics: 

• Overview of the Alliance for Vehicle Efficiency (AVE) 

• The automobile supplier industry and where things are headed 

• EPA’s Midterm evaluation of emission standards 

• AVE concerns about matters that will impact the supplier industry 

• How AVE and its members can assist EPA (What type of information the auto 
supplier community might be able to provide EPA to assist with the rulemaking?) 


Thank you again for assisting with this meeting. 
-Lee 


Lee J. Janger 

Director, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs 



///3/7C6 for i/On/Ci© bf//c/ €#fl 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005684-00001 





202 . 607.0723 


Lee@ArmitageLi.C.com 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005684-00002 



From: Kime, Robin 

Location: 3513 A 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Discussion with Mr. Ike Scott, President of Scott Bridge Co. 
Start Date/Time: Wed 3/22/2017 3:30:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Wed 3/22/2017 3:45:00 PM 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your right as 
you exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 20 minutes prior to the meeting with 
photo IDs to clear Security. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all other 
matters call Robin Kime (202)564-6587. 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005685-00001 



From: Kime, Robin 

Location: DCRoomARN3500/OPEI 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Meeting with Edward Hild: Exemption of Certain Ocean Shipping Vessels from Mandatory 

Fuel Standards 

Start Date/Time: Tue 7/11/2017 5:30:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Tue 7/11/2017 6:00:00 PM 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on 
your right as you exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 20 minutes 
prior to the meeting with photo IDs to clear Security. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all 
other matters call Robin Kime (202)564-6587. 


Request: Now that Congress has passed the FY 2017 Omnibus Appropriations bill, we 
have a client - Canada Steamship Lines that is very supportive of report language 
contained in the Senate Interior portion of the bill asking the EPA to consider exempting 
certain ocean shipping vessels from mandatory fuel standards that were implemented in 
January of 2015. We also briefly mentioned the issue to you during our meting and my 
colleague Terry Heubert and I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to discuss the 
issue in more detail with you and EPA’s approach to the Senate language. 


Attendees: Edward Hild, Terry Heubert (also of Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney) and Richard 
Currie (Canada Steamship Lines Americas) 


Contact: 

Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC 

KNOW GREA.TER PAR.TNERSHIP 

Edward G. Hild 

Principal.Government Relations 

T 202.452.5480 1700 K Street, N.W. 

F 202.452.7989 Suite 300 

edward.h iid@bi pc,c tWashington, 

DC 20006-3807 

BSPC.com | Twitter I 
Linked In 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005686-00001 



17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005686-00002 



From: Kime, Robin 

Location: 3500 WJCN 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Introductory Meeting with Oren Cass 

Start Date/Time: Thur 7/13/2017 6:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Thur 7/13/2017 6:30:00 PM 

170102-How to Worry About Climate Change (National Affairsfpdf 

170321-The Problem with Climate Catastrophizinq (FA).pdf 

170417-VVhos the Denier Now (NR).pdf 

170531 -Goodbye to P aris (Commentary).pdf 

170601-Well Never Have Paris (CJ).pdf 

170605-Dont Apologize for Being Honest about Climate Change (NRO).pdf 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on 
your right as you exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 20 minutes 
prior to the meeting with photo IDs to clear Security. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all 
other matters call Robin Kime (202)564-6587. 


Contact: adamwhite.dc@gmail.com 


Request: My friend and co-author, Oren Cass of the Manhattan Institute, has written far-and- 
away the best commentaries in recent months on climate, Paris, and the EPA. He has some 
advice for you on some things to consider as Administrator Pruitt structures his red-blue team 
approach. Specifically, he wants to urge you that one of the most valuable things you could do is 
to study the "baselines" that are being used to forecast potential emissions trajectories; this is a 
huge shortcoming of current science and is being badly mischaracterized/misused. An 
EPA analysis of it would be hugely valuable. I can’t recommend strongly enough that you meet 
Oren soon Here’s his bio . Some of Oren’s recent commentaries in favor of reforming climate 
policy: 




I cm with Climate Catastophizing ” 


Foreign Affairs , March 2017 


“W ho ’ s the Deniers Now ” — National Review , May 2017 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005688-00001 




“ Goodbye to Paris: The Sin of Being Honest ” — Commentary, May 2017 


" We’ll Never Have Paris: The climate change agreement was designed as a feel-good, do- 
nothing program ” — City Journal, May 2017 


" Don't Apologize for Being Honest about Climate Change ” — National Review, June 2017 


Debating President Trump’s Withdrawal from the Paris Accord — NPR, June 2017 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005688-00002 








NATIONAL AFFAIRS 


How to Worry about ClimateChange 


Oren Cass 


ft K | o chal lenge —nochal lenge-poses a greater threat tefu 

I N tu re generations than cl imate change,’’said President Barack 
Obama in his 2015State of the Union address. Yet his own adm-inis 
t rat ion’s best estimate for the economic cost of that chal lenge, if left 
unaddressed, totaled on Iy1% to 4% of annual global GDP by 2100. For 
comparison,whi lepromotingthe AffordabICareAct in 2009, the pres 
ident’sCounci I of Economic Advisersestimated that “genuineheal th 
care reform” could increase U.S. GDP by 8% by 2030. A2015 report by 
the McKinsey Global Instituteestimated that improvementsin gender 
equal ity wor Idwidecould increase global GDP by 11% by 2025. In what 
way, t hen, is t he cha 11 engeof c I i mate change “g reater ”? 

To be sure, GDPoffersa notoriously incomplete measure of human 
flourishingBut the real problem with assessing Obama’s assert ion is 
mo re fundamental: Cl imate change is a differte'nd/of problem from 
health-care reform, gender equal ity, or almost any traditional subject 
of political attention and action. Its relevant effectsaresti 11 decades or 
centuries away. Scenarios with the most extreme effects, rat her than 
the most I ikelyones, providethe sense of urgency and the rationalefor 
pol icy responses. Those ext remeoutcomesareoftendistant ripplesfrom 
the initial effectof a warmer cl imate, transmitted outward through mul 
tiplestepsof causation and combined with other factors to produceor 
ampl ify the damage. By the time actual impactsar rive, the time for ac 
tion may have long passed. But if cl imatechange is not a typical pol icy 
problem, how should pol icymakers approach it? 

This is not an abst ract question. As a new administration takes of 
fice,it must recal ibratefrom the extraordinary attention its predecessor 


Oren Cass isasenior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. 

115 


Copyright 201 7. All rights reserved. See www.NationalAffairs.com for more information. 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005689-00001 



National Affairs • Winter 2017 

lavished on the issue. Wheredoescl imatechangefitin theconstel lation 
ofchal lenges facing the nation and theworld?For the administration’s 
opponents, how much energy should go toward lamenting a shiftin 
cl imatepol icy versus high I igh ting other areas of concern? 

Much of the pol itical rhetoric and pol icy ana I ysissur rounding cl i 
mate change starts from a premise that the chal lenge is t ruly unique, 
demanding unparal leled levelsof focus and action. A cl imate-change 
conference could attract the United Nations’ largest ever gathering of 
wor Id leaders in 2015 because, as French president Francois Hoi lande 
declared at its opening, “neve-rt ruly neve^have the stakes of an 
international meeting been so high. For the future of the planet, and 
the future of I ife, are at stake.” Comparisons to Wor Id War II have be 
come commonplace, and proponentsof strong climate action deride 
thei r opponentsas “denier-s^a term previous I yassociated with refusal 
to acknow I edge t he occu r rence of t he Ho I ocaust. Lef t-wi ngpo I i t icians 
from former vice president AI Gore to Senator BernieSanders to New 
York City mayor Bil I deBlasiowarn that human civilization hangs in 
the balance. 

This framing influence^ I icy di rect ly. During the 2016 Democratic 
primaries, for instance, Senator Sanders suggested the nation’smobi I i 
zation for Wor Id War II in 1941 was “exact ly the kind of approach we 
need right now,”whileformer senator and Secretary of State Hil lary 
Cl intonofferedher plan to createa dedicated “cl imatemap room” in 
the White House, akin to President Frank I in Roosevel t’sown map room 
during that same war. The mindset is reflectedn the Democrats’official 
platform,which “commit[s]toa national mobilization,and to leading 
a global effortto mobi I ize nations to address this threat on a scale not 
seen since Wor IdWar II.” Lest the claims be taken as less than I iteral, 
the New Republic clarifiedin its headline of an article by activist Bil I 
McKibben: “We Need to Literal I y Declare War on Cl imate Change.” 

Based on such di re out looks, advocates of aggressive cl imate ac 
tion justify thei r proposals under the “precautionary principle” or as 
“insurance,’’even where the measurable costs appear to far outweigh 
measu rab Iebenefi ts.They dism iss skept icism abou11 hat app roach as an 
i r rational fai I u re to understand thescopeof the p rob I em or an excessive 
discounting of future damage. “If global warming took out an eyeevery 
nowandthen,” scoffecD anGilbert,pr ofesso rofpsychologyatHarvard 
University,“OSHAwould regulateit into nonexistence.” 

116 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005689-00002 



Oren Cass • How to Worry about Climate Change 

But the unmooring of cl innate changefrom any conventional pol icy 
framework has been rhetorical rather than reasoned. It requires-justifica 
t ion—otherwise, t he obsessiveand apocalyptic pol iticsbui 11 atop it cannot 
be suppo r ted. Yes, c I i mate change is a p rob I em. Bu t vklrafof p r ob I em? 

calibrating Our \ADrries 

Cl imate change stands apart from typical chal lengesin three important 
respects. Fi rst, whereas most chal lengesramecf/afe, cl imate change is 
forecasted. The pol it ical process usual I y engages with problems as they 
present themselves or based on expected consequences of cu r rent events. 
The cl aim that high corporate-tax rates drive businesses overseas, or that 
high col legetuition burdensgraduateswith overwhelming debt, can be 
tested against experienceandquantifiedin ter ms of ongoing costs. Claims 
about cl imate change cannot. Scientists do strive to identify con tempo 
rary costs, but the scale of the chal lengeand the case for action depend 
on cal ami ties yet tocomeindeed.assertionsthatclimatechangewil I be 
far outsideof existing experienceoftenplaya central rolein the case for 
itssignificanceYet thisabsenceof referencepointscreatesadouble-edged 
uncertainty: Compared to most pol icy issues, the level of risk seems high 
but the level of confidencan predictions is low. 

Second, whereas most chal lengessteEf/c, cl imate change isre- 
yersibte. Medical errors kill more than 250,000 Americans each year, 
according to researchers at Johns Hopkins University. Those deaths 
each represent an individual tragedy and, applying the EPA’sp refer red 
estimate of $10 mi 11 ion per life, cost a staggering 15% of national GDP. 
But deaths one year have I ittleeffecton society’s capacity to makefu 
ture progress on the issue. Even most forecasted problemsshare this 
characteristic: If demographic t rendssuggest an impending shortage of 
nursing-home beds and politicians ignore the warnings, more capacity 
can sti 11 be bui 11 aftert he crisis hits. With cl imate change, by contrast, 
scientists warn the planet wi 11 reach a point of no return. Carbon diox 
ide, once emit ted into the atmosphere, remains therefor centuries. If 
temperatures rise and predicted meteorological dominos begin tofal I, 
subsequenteffortsto reduce emissions wi 11 not offer re I ief. 

Third, whereas most chal I engesaaraf/'ned, climate change jas/va- 
Sf've. The typical forecasted problem,even if i r reversibIe,has I imited reach. 
Popu I at iong rowt h i n t he Amer ican Sou t h west may d r ive so me species to 
extinction in the coming decades. But there,or near there, that particular 

117 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005689-00003 



National Affairs • Winter 2017 

causal chain I ikelyends. It is const rained geographical ly,thematical ly,and 
in the extent of damage. Not so with cl i mate change. Its global scope and 
I i nkages to many critical envi ron men ta I and econom icsystems i nvi te t he 
conjuring of disrupt ions in every cranny of modern civi I ization. 

Cl imatechange- forecasted, irre&isible, and pen/as/ ve—might there 
fore be cal led a “wor rying problem.” Here, “wor rying” does not mean 
“concerning” (though it is that as wel I), but rather something tai lor- 
madefor worry. I ts effectsexist primarily in the imagination and have 
poor lydefinecbounds that encouragespeculation;a point of no return 
looms. Yet the contours of those bounds and that point may become 
clear only afterit is too late to correct course. 

Other worrying problems exist. They tend to emerge where clear 
long-term trends in technological or social change produce concerning 
side effects.The obvious t rajectory of growing fossi I-fuel consumption, 
prerequisite(with cur rent tech no logy) to continued global industrial iza 
tion, produces the cl imatechal lenge.Simi lar ly,ever-denser urbanization 
coupledwithever-more-frequent travel fromever-more-remote locations 
producesan ever-greater risk of a global pandemic. Such a pandemic is 
widely forecast to occur though the timing is unknowable; it wi 11 be 
too late to prevent once underway, and it has the potential to cause 
catastrophic damage throughout society. Increasing urbanization also 
exposes society to both higher I eve Is of social unrest and disruption by 
increasingly powerful and wel l-coordinatednon-stateactors. 

Overuse of antibiotics a round theworldcould render them useless in 
thefaceof rapidlyevolvingbacteria, possiblysetting back medical progress 
against disease and infection by decades. The rising sophistication T ubiq 
uity.and interconnectivityoffinancialsystems threaten a global economic 
me 11 down of the typeonlynar row I y aver ted in 2008. The democratization 
of communicationstechnologieshasal ready providedferti le ground for 
terrorist networks to recruit, coordinate, and promote themselves. Nuclear 
weapons represent in some respects a quintessential wor rying problem, 
though an oddly binary one: Thei r I ikely effectsare al I too wel l-under 
stood; their risk remains roughly as present this year as last year as next. 
The issue typical ly attains salience only when conditions suggest risk is 
trending upward-as early in the Cold War,during periods of protifera 
tion,or when leadersappear potential lywil ling to countenance their use. 

Just as technology can providea vector to heighten some risk, it can 
also pose the risk itself. For instance, many experts fear the prospect of 

118 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005689-00004 



Oren Cass • How to Worry about Climate Change 

faster computing hardwareand moresophisticatedsoftwareul timately 
yielding superhuman and potential ly hosti le artificial intel I igence. 
Computer vi ruses, meanwhi le, might somedayal low thei r creators to 
commandeer the basic infrastructure of modern society. Continued 
advancementsin nanotechnology-especial lyif weaponized-raise 
com par able fears of tools either inadvertent I yescaping the control of 
their creators or being deployed maliciously. 

All these are wor rying problems. Al I present a potential scope of 
damagethat isat thispointonlyhypothetical butcouldbealmostunlim 
i ted— i n pa r fcecause i t is on I y hypot het ica I. Each is p I ausi b I yfo reseeab I e 
given p resent t rends, and each wou I d defy p reventiononce underway,yet 
for each the moment or probabi I ityof reckoning is impossibleto know. 

Worrying problems can also be sociological, rather than techno 
logical. Declining fertility rates coup led with extending I ifespans, for 
instance, pose precise I yfanacasted, irre&rsble , andpe/vas/'vechal lenge 
to modern civi I ization.So too do economic and social t ransit ions with 
t he poten t ia I to make I a rgeswat hes of t he wo r ki ng-agema I e popu I at ion 
effectivelyunemployable.Insofar as two-parent fami I ies are a crucial 
cont ributor to successful chi Id-rearing, the col I apse of that social norm 
and i ts compounding across generat ions I ikewise exhibits the character 
isticsofaworrying problem. 

Those may not seem intuitively I ike problemssimi lar to cl imate 
change. But imagine President Obama describing riots in Baltimoreas 
he might describea major hurricane strike: “While sociologists say no 
individual riot can be I inked conclusively to the absence of two-parent 
fami I ies, this social unrest is exact ly the type they say wi 11 become more 
p reva I en t and seve re as t he t rend wo rsens. ” The p r ob I ems may not seem 
as catastrophic. But that isaquestionof degree, not kind,and therefore 
one that permits re levant comparison. If one of these wor rying phenom 
ena were on I y to si ow annua I p roduct ivi ty g rowt h by one-tenth of one 
percentage point for only one-tenth of the population, the economic 
impact three generat ions hence wou Id be of the same magnitude which 
is forecast in cl imate-change models. 

Even thesustainabi I ityof the Western welfarestate itself is a wor ry 
ing problem. In the United States, the federal government has tens of 
tril lions of dol larsin unfunded entitlement liabilitiesandadebtpoised 
to spi ral out of cont rol if interest payments begin to swal low-the na 
tional budget; most other developed economies face situations at least 

119 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005689-00005 



National Affairs • Winter 2017 

as d i re. A co 11 apse wou I d have i mmeasu rab I eeconom icand geopo I i t ica I 
impl icationsyet maygivealmost no advance warning. 

Thereis, inshort,much toworry about. But while these problemsal I 
look fundamental lydifferentfrom other pol icychal lengesl by their 
forecasted, irr&etsibh, andpen/as/'ienatu re defy traditional too Is of pol icy 
analysis—they stack next to each other quite cleanly. Per haps climate 
change and defer red bridge maintenance requi redifferentrisk-tolerance 
assumptions. But the thinking appl ied to cl i mate change and pandemics 
should be simi I a r. Per haps it makes no sense to compare the long-term 
threat from water-supplydisruptionswith the present cost of medical er 
rors. But water stabi I ityandfami lystabi I ity have much more in common. 

Worrying problems demand greater focus than day-to-day politi 
cal pressure might otherwise prompt, but long-term risks cannot be 
al lowed tosapal I attention away from the more routine but also more 
painful real itiesof the moment (consistentprogresson the latter isevery 
bit as important to society’s long-term heal th). In iso I at ion, each wo r ry 
ing problem can seem overwhelming. But they cannot al I be the greatest 
chal lengeof futuregenerations,or grounds for mobilization on a scale 
not seen since theglobal fightagainst fascism. 

Each reader wi 11 I ikely have his own reaction to the wor rying prob 
lems I isted hefe which genuinelyqual ify and which others have been 
over looked;whichamong them is t rulyforecasted, i r reversible,and per 
vasive; whet her thoseareeven the correct dimensions. But at least those 
are concrete and const ructive discussions. The classificationof-prob 
lems into hierarchies, the establ ishment of shared assumptions bui 11 
with acommon vocabulary,and reason ing by ana logy a re a 11 critical to 
determiningappropriatetoolsof government power, theal location of 
resources,and the tolerance for risk. 

Weshould heed the wel I-known warning: “What worries you-mas 
tersyou.” We need to choose and cal ib rate our wor ries with care. If, at 
least, cl i mate changeasvor rying problem but not tbe/yone, what 
makes i t most wo r ryi ng of a 11? 

expectations in perspective 

Environmental activists have an immediate and predictable response: 

“ because weknow c I imatechange is going to happen.’’But that conflates 
two very differentconceptionsof cl imate char sheeted change and 
extreme change. 


120 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005689-00006 



Oren Cass • How to Worry about Climate Change 

Thescientificconsensus holds that the cl imate is warming and hu 
man activity pi aysa substantia I role. But there is no consensus about how 
much warming human activity has caused or wi 11 cause. According to 
the FifthAssessment Report of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental 
Pane I on CI i mate Change (IPCC) i n 2013, t he best est i mates of wa r m i ng 
for a given increase in theatmosphericconcent rat ion of carbon dioxide 
range by a factor of three, a rangethat hasgrown wider in recentyears. 

A doub I i ng of ca r bon d ioxide cou I d p r oduce a tempe rat u re i nc rease of 
1.5degreesCelsius, or 4.5degreesCelsius, or more I ikelysomething in 
between .Expected cl imate change, averaging the widely varying pro 
ject ions and assuming no aggressive effortsto reduce greenhouse-gas 
emissions, entai Is warming of 3 to 4 degrees Cel si us by 2100. 

Even focusing within that range, estimates for the expected environ 
men ta I/'npacfe of warming vary widely. The IPCC represents the gold 
standard forsynthesizingscientifiasstimates, and, crucial I y, its best guesses 
bear little resemblance to the apocalyptic predictionsoftenrepeatedbyac 
tivistsand pol iticians. For instance, the I PCC estimates that sea levelshave 
risen by halfafoot over the past century and wil I rise by another two feet 
over the cur rent century. At the high end of the3-to-4-degree range, it re 
ports the impact on ecosystems wi 11 be no worse than that of the land-use 
changes to which humancivilizational ready subjects the natural world. 

The responsibi I ityfor t ranslating these and other disruptions into 
economic costs fa I Is to Integrated Assessment Models(IAMs).Tocre 
ate its “Social Cost of Carbon,” the Obama administration surveyed 
this economic literatureand focused specifical I yon three modelswhose 
forecasts themselves vary widely,even starting from a common level of 
warming. For warming of 3 to 4 degrees Celsius by 2100, the middle of 
the three mode Isesti mates an annual cost of 1% to 3% of GDP.The low 
case est i mates 0 to 1%. Thfeg/7 case estimates2% to 4%. Whi Ie4% is a 
largedol lar amount, arriving at that impact over near I ylOO years implies 
almost imperceptiblysmal I changes in economicgrowth. 

The specif icsof this high-case model are informative: The Dynamic 
Integrated model of Cl imate and the Economy (known as the DICE 
mode I) developed by Wi 11 iam Nordhausat YaleUniversityestimates3.8 
degrees Cel si us of warming by 2100 costing an associated 3.9% of GDP 
in that year. But over time, this cost is the equivalent of slowing eco 
nomicgrowth by less than one-tenth of one percentage point annual ly. 

By 2100, regard less of cl imate change, the wor Id is more than six times 

121 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005689-00007 



National Affairs • Winter 2017 

weal thier than in 2015under this model; global GDP is$500 trill ion. 
Theeffectof cl innate change is to reduce that gain from a mu I tipleof 
6.7 to a mu I tipleof 6.5. The economy a I so continues to grow, so that the 
cl imate-change-affl icted/or Idof 2105 isal ready much weal thier than a 
world of 2100 facing no cl i mate change at all. 

Such estimates might seem counterintuitively low, especial I y given 
the rhetoric often employed. Part of the explanation I ies in the al most 
incomprehensible economic prog ress that human civilization is capa 
bleof making over the course of a century. The annual cost identified 
by Nordhausin 2100 is $20 trill ien massive by the standards of 2015, 
manageable by the standards of 2100. Further, that cost repeats every 
year even as the impacts are spread over many years. Thus, over the 
2090 to 2110 time period, Nordhausenvisions the wor Id spending a 
stunning$350t ri 11 ion to copewith cl imatechange. One might despai r 
over what else such resourcesmight accompl ishover that time period. 
But one must also recognize that the economy of 2100 wi 11 I ikely be 
able to a I locate those resources toward cl imate change whi le also al 
locating to every other facet of society far more resources than are 
available today. 

Cor robo rating these models, the IPCC concludes that “for most eco 
nomicsectors, the impacts of driverssuch as changes in population, age 
structure, income, technology, relative prices, lifestyle, regulation, and 
governanceare projected to be large relative to the impacts of cl imate 
change.” In other words, other wor rying problems have a far greater 
capacity to influenc^Drogress. 

None of this means the dislocationsfrom cl imate change would be 
painlessor the disruptionscheap. It is merely to observe that -the im 
pactsexpecfed from cl imate change over the next hundred years look 
si mi lar to those th rough which both civi I ization and our planet have 
successful ly muddled over the past hundred and continue tostruggle 
with today. Other wor rying problems have thei r own anticipated but 
I ess-severe ana logs, too. Whether a global pandemic strikes, epidemics 
will inevitably occur I ike the 2014 Ebolaoutbreak in West Africa that 
claimed mo re than 10,000 livesandcost the three countries at its center 
more than a tenth of thei r GDP.Whether artificial intel I igencemakes 
humans superfluousjself-driving vehicles could throw mil lions out of 
work in the years to come. Some count r ies wi 11 defaul t on thei r debt; 
somebusinesscycleswil I spawn deep global recessions. 

122 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005689-00008 



Oren Cass • How to Worry about Climate Change 

These chal lengesare not existential th reats or even ones that require 
analysisoutsidethestandardpol icyproee34iat is, theyarenot real ly 
worrying problems at al I. 

ext reme cases 

If expected cl imate change represents the most I ikely outasxtmre 
c I i mate change rep resen ts t he wo rst case: Model s cou I d be under-est i mat 
ing the warming that emissions wi 11 cause; feedback I oops cou I d send a 
3-degreeincreasesuddenIycareening higher;or evenat theexpected level 
the cl imate cou Id hit a t ripwi re that col lapsesglobal ecosystems or ocean 
cur rentsor ice sheets or some other prerequisiteof modern civi I ization. 

Any of these things may be t rue-as is the nature of genuinertcye- 
casted chal lenges, they are most ly non-falsifiableBut whi le extreme 
cl imate change is a quintessential ly wor rying problem, it is also one 
that has no guaranteeor even I ikel ihood of occur ring. Certainly, the 
“scientifioconsensus” or even the “scientificmainstream” on climate 
change does not extend to confidencein such scenarios. 

Tocompareext reme cl imatechange with other worrying problems, 
it is helpful to consider the dimensions that make a problem “worry 
ing”: that it ifcvecasfee/, irreversible, and pervasive. On al I three, cl imate 
change appears I ess wor rying than most. 

Consider,fi rst,the magnitudeof the forecasted impact. Many wor ry 
ing problems feature the credible prospect of kil I ing asignificantshare 
of the human population or erasing modern civi I ization. Not extreme 
cl imatechange. For instance, even considering higher temperature in 
creases, the IPCC concludes that: 

Global cl imate change risks are high to very high with global 
mean temperature increase of 4°C or more above preindust rial 
levels in al I reasons for concern, and incl udesevere and wide 
spread impacts on unique and threatened systems, substantial 
species extinct ion, large risks to global and regional food secu 
rity, and the combination of high temperatureand humidity 
compromising norma I human activities, including growing food 
or working outdoors in some areas for parts of the year. 

Obviously,each of thoseeffectswouldentai I enormous economic costs, 
carry severe consequences for entire nations, and wreak havoc with the 

123 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005689-00009 



National Affairs • Winter 2017 

natural envi ronment. But as a worst case, it nevertheless pales-in com 
parison to catast rophes that might ki 11 asignificantshareof the human 
populationor erase the basic physical and economic infrastructure of 
modern civilization. 

Seriouseffortsto quantify existential th reats concur. A 2016 report by 
the Globa I PrioritiesProjectat Oxford offeredas its example of a worst 
case that cl i mate change cou Id “render most of the tropics substantia I ly 
less habitable than at present,” as compared to hundreds of mi 11 ions 
or bil lions of deaths associated with other chal I enges. Another Oxford 
study from 2008 asked conference participants to estimate the-prob 
abi I ity of various global catast rophes leading to human extinction in 
the coming century, and did not even see fitto included i mate change 
as an option, whi le respondentsgave molecular nanotechnology,super- 
intel I igentartificialintel I igence,and an engineeredpandemiceach at 
least a2% chance of erasing humanity by 2100. 

Some ana I ysts nonet he I ess p I ace climate change among human i ty’s 
genuinelyexistential th reats on the basis of its “fat tai Iarguing that 
some unknowable but non-zero chance exists at the far-right end of 
the probabi I ity dist ri but ion for an outcome with essential ly infinite 
cost. But this is t rue of al I wor rying prob+erinradeed, the charac 
teristics of wor rying problems might be viewed as those that generate 
such unknowable non-zero probabi I ities. Cl imate change cannot be 
distinguishedUom other wor rying problemson that basis. Rather, the 
argument begs the question: What characteristics of cl imate change 
make its tai I relativelyfatter or thinner? 

The weight accorded to a wor rying problem’sforecasted effectsde 
pends great I yon the number of causal steps between the under lying 
phenomenaand worst-case outcomes. Where fewer stepsare necessary, 
or wheresteps are relatively more I ikely to occur, the probabi I ity of 
the worst case a rising should increase. For instance, whether an engi 
neered pandemic devastates humanity depends on development of the 
necessary techno logy (high I y I ikely), its use by a mal iciousactor (-indeter 
minate),and its spread defying effortsat containment (indeterminate). 
Generallyspeaking, technological threats will have the shortest chains 
whi I e sociological threats will have the longest ones. 

Cl imate change would appear to sit somewhere in between. It has a 
very short chain tome impact—indeed, higher atmosphericconeen 
t rationsof carbondioxideareal ready having effectsBut the connect ion 

124 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005689-00010 



Oren Cass • How to Worry about Climate Change 

from warmer temperaturestocivi I izational catastropheishighl-yattenu 
ated. The initial warming must cross thresholds that produce feedback 
loops.The ensuing warmth must produceenvi ronmental effectsthat 
cause unprecedented crises across societies. Those crises must in turn 
overwhelm the coping capacity of theentireglobal community, which 
must in turn produce wide-scale breakdowns in social order or trigger 
mi I itary confl ict,which must in turn metastasize.Lntvhal? Certainly, 
one can invent a scenario. But thespecificsquickly become hazy, and a 
worst case enti relyoutsideof human experiencedifficu I to articulate. 

The intent of this analysis is not to dismiss the severity of worst-case 
cl imatescenariosor tosuggest that “wide-scalebreakdownsinsocial or 
der” a re acceptable. But al I wor rying problems have worst-case forecasts 
that look this way, al I with indeterminate probabi I itiesof occurring, 
which leaves on I y a few opt ions: We cou I d become overwhel med with 
despai r, emphasize whichever problemsare most pol itical ly useful, or 
seek out qual itativeand quantitative bases for analysis. Too mush dis 
cussion of c I i mate change adopts t he f i rsto r second approach. Effo r tsat 
the third approach wi 11 inevitably be imprecise and imperfect, but the 
bu rden of p roof shou I d I ie on t hose dec I a r i ng t hat c I i mate change stands 
apart from other wor rying problems to exp lain why that is so. Thesug 
gestion here is not that tfoeecasted threat of climate change does not 
belong alongsideother worrying problems, only that the nature of its 
forecast cannot be what separates it as uniquely wor rying. 

WDrrying in slOW mQOn 

In the other ways cl imate change is a wor rying problem, meanwhi le, it is 
less wor rying than most. This is especial ly truewith respect to irreversibil ity. 
Whi le President Obama has lamented that cl imate change is a “cempara 
t i ve I y s I ow-movi ng erne r gency, ” t he one t h i ng wo rse is a fast-movi ng one. 
Most wor rying problemshaveworst-casescenarios that sweep theg I obe in 
a ma t te r of mon t hs, days, o r even m i nu tes. Fo r c I i mate change, t he damage 
unfolds over decades or centuries. This hasseveral impl ications. 

Fi rst, whi le cl imate change is i r reversiblecompared to the typical 
pol icy problem, it does al low for some potential interventions even 
once well underway. For instance, natural processes al ready exist for 
extracting carbon dioxidefrom the atmosphere,and new technologies 
could be developed that accelerate those processesor create artificial 
ones. Al ternatively, humans could useso-cal led “geoengineering” to 

125 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005689-00011 



National Affairs • Winter 2017 

effectother changes in the cl imate system that might counteract an 
intensifying green house effect.These approachesofferno guarantee or 
even I ikel ihoodof success; turning to geoengineering might be seen as 
adisaster in its own right. But they offermo re cause for optimism than 
exists with many other wor rying problems. 

Second, time permits adaptation. Whi le the prospect of losing50% 
of existing agricul tural capacity is daunting, over a50-year period only 
1% of capacity needs to shiftannual ly. By comparison, over the past 50 
years, total agricul tural output has t rip led. Si mi lar ly, the need for hun 
dredsof mil I ions of people to migrate over a century amounts to little 
out of the ordinary on an annual basis. There are, for instance, more 
than 200 mi 11 ion migrant workerswithin China, as wel I as another 200 
mil I ion international migrantsand at least 60 mi 11 ion refugees around 
the world right now.The United Nations estimates 2.5 bi I lion people 
wi11 migrate to cities in just the next 35years. Further migration, or 
per haps the gradual abandonmentof somecitiesor evenenti re regions, 
would obviously be ext raordinari I y cost I y and disruptive in human, eco 
nomic, and environmental terms. But the reason such adaptationsare 
rarely mentioned in the context of other wor rying problems is not that 
they would be unnecessary, but rather that, in those other cases, they 
would be either impossibleor elsefuti le. 

Pu rveyo rsofc reat ivel ycatast roph icc I i matecasesa Iso facea Catch-22: 
Developingever-moreext remescenarios typical ly requi resever-longer 
timescales. Even higher temperatu resand risks of further dominos fal I 
ing are th reatene^by 2300, or after“centuries.”Confidentforecasts 
of mul ti-metersea-level risesare issued, tooccur over mu I tip I e mi I len 
nia. Harvard University’sMartin Weitzman, the leadingproponentof 
the case that cl imate change presentsa uniquely “fat tai Ifal Is into 
precisely this t rap: The worst case he offersrel ies on continued tern 
pe rat u re increases over mul tipi ecentur ies. But if heightening the th reat 
requi resextending the timeframe further, it becomes di luted th reefold: 
More time becomes available for adaptation, for economic progress 
and technological innovation that render the th reat i r relevant, or for 
the model to fail. Any impact forecasted for 200, let a I one 2,000, years 
into the future becomes a I most inherertofeycognizable than those 
a I ready under study for 2100. 

Final ly, consider the pervasiveness of extreme cl imate change. By 
influencingthe I iteral atmosphere in which al I other human activity 

126 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005689-00012 



Oren Cass • How to Worry about Climate Change 

takes place, climate change per haps exceeds any other chal lengein the 
breadth of its causal connect ions and potential effects.But this same 
dynam ic a I so I eaves i ts connect ions to u 11 i mate damage more dependen t 
on interactionwithothercontributingfactors.Asa result,morealterna 
tiveapproachesexist for mitigation. 

If one wants to prevent a financialcol lapsefrom sending the wor Id 
into economic depression,one needs to prevent the col lapse. By con 
trast, consider a favorite present-day causa I chain used to il lust rate the 
ful I specter of the cl imate th reat: the asserted connection between cl i 
mate change, drought in the MiddleEast, social upheaval in Syria, the 
count ry’sgruesome civil war, the rise of ISIS,and thefloodof refugees 
into Europe. Perhaps the catast rophe might have been averted or less 
ened had therebeen nodrought.But better weather would seem an odd 
prescription for stability and prosperity in the Middle-Ejafciinly 
neither necessary nor sufficientDemocraticgovernance,social progress, 
moreeffectiv^/Vesterninterventionbyeither regional or global powers, 
or even just better water-usagepracticesareal I superior approaches. 

Another count ry, bordering Syria, has sufferedthe same drought. 
But a report ii SbientificAmerican explains, “Water is driving the entire 
[MiddleEast] to desperateacts. Except Israel. Amazingly, Israel has more 
water than it needs.” While Syria’s oppressed society was crumbl ing, 
Israel launcheda new era of desal ination technology.The writer con 
eludes: “The cont rasts couldn’t be starker. A few mi Ies from [Israel], 
water disappeared and civi I ization crumbled. Here, a galvanized Givi I iza 
tion created water from nothingness.AsBar-Zeevand I drink deep,and 
thecl imatesizzles, I wonderwhichof thesestorieswil I betheexception, 
and which the rule.” 

This is compel I ingstorytel I ing. At fi rstg lance it seems a cautionary 
taleof cl imatechange.But read theconcludingsentenceagain. Cl imate 
change is not the independentvariable, it is the constant. The quest ion 
is whet her civi I izationwi 11 equip itself to th rive anyway. What separates 
a wor Id of 2100 dominated by drought-plagued fai led states and one 
fi I ledwith prospering democracies that export water from blooming 
desert plains is not cl imatechange. It is theworld’sability tosupplant 
radical ideology with modernity. This same pattern repeats itself in 
equipping societies to withstand natural disasters, feed themselves, 
eradicate disease, or thrive in the face of any other chal lengeclimate 
change might pose. 


127 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005689-00013 



National Affairs • Winter 2017 

Perhaps sociological chal lenges I ike decl ining ferti I ity, workforce 
participation, or fami lystabi I ity seemed out of place in the initial I ist of 
worrying problems.Yet it is these, not genuinelyexistential threats to 
humanity, with which cl imate change has the most in common. They 
all impose real costs but rely on lengthy causal chains to reach from 
basic phenomenon to true catastrophe. They al I unfoldslowlyand leave 
opportunity for intervention.Thei r pervasiveness in each case depends 
on interaction with other sociological conditions that al I invite pol icy 
interventions themselv^hese worrying problems deserve attention, 
but not out of proportion to the genuine nature of the threat they pose. 

V\Or rying prOper ly 

“ISIS is not an existential threat to the Uni ted States,” President Obama 
told theAf/anf/c’sJeffreyGoldberg. “Cl imate change is a potential-exis 
tential threat to the entire world if we don’t do something about it.” The 
c I ai m is nonsensica I because i t com pa resa wo r ry i ng p r ob I em to t he t r ad i 
t iona I nat iona l-secu r i ty cha 11 enge of a specificte r ro r ist g roup. Obviousl y, 
the former wi 11 appear more I ike an “existential threat.” Conversely, one 
might choose a measure that would shift the calculus: ISIS and ISIS 
inspi redactorski I led moreAmericans in 2016 than did cl imate change. 

The discussion would be more const ructive, and dramatical-ly dif 
ferent, if “ISIS” were converted into the wor rying problem of which 
it representsan ear ly manifestation: As an existential threat, how does 
cl imatechange compare to increasingly potent rel igiousextremism that 
leverages techno logical advances to increase coordination, propaganda, 
andforcePWhich I inks mo re credibly to greater catast rophegivenalOO- 
year timeframdPWhich wi 11 prove more difficu I to reverseor adapt to? 

In October, President Obama observed: 

There’sal ready some real ly interestingwembt definitivefrut 
powerful—showing that the droughts that happened in Syria 
contributed to the unrest and the Syrian civil war. Wei I, if you 
start magnifying that acrossa lot of states, a lot of nation states 
that al ready contain a lot of poor people who a re just right at the 
margins of survival, this becomes a national security issue. 

Surely that remainsat least as true if the word “droughts” is replaced 
with “riseof radical Islam.” 


128 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005689-00014 



Oren Cass • Hew to Worry about Climate Change 

The president’si insistence on treating ISISonlyon its current terms 
rather than consideringa long-term, worst-case scenario is precisely the 
purportederror in logiefor which hechidesanyonewho refuses tofeel 
the burning urgency of cl imate change because itseffectstodayare not 
large. Or conversely, the over-pol iticizationof radical Islam he insists 
on rising above bears striking resemblance to the over-pol iticizationof 
c I i mate change he pu rveys. 

According to the Associated Press, on Iy17% of Americans “arealarmed 
by cl imate change and want action now.” At the other ext reme,10% “are 
dismissive, rejecting the concept of warming and the science.’’The si lent 
majority iseither “concerned,thinking it’sa man-madeth reat, butsome 
what distant in time and place” (28%) or “cautious, sti 11 on the fence” 
(27%).That “alarmed” 17% tends to believe it has a monopoly on rational 
assessment of the situation and resorts to psychological explanations for 
the fai lure of others to join. But if cl imate change is just one wor rying 
p rob I emamong many, t he si I en t majo r i ty may have itright.lnwhich case 
some of that psychological analysis might best be turned inward. 

For instance, Harvard geology professor Daniel Schrag observed in 
a recent lecture, questioning reluctance to takedecisiveclimateaction: 
“Peoplescratch thei r heads and say: Why don’t peopledo what’s right? 
Wei I, maybe they’re rational. It’shard toaccept.But infact, maybethey 
actual ly don’t value the future as much as some of us do.”Sch rag cor 
rect ly identified hat the divide in perspectiveson cl imate change reflects 
in part two differentviewson the future. But he simply assumes it is he 
and his audiencewho have it right. Yes, humans may i r rational-lydis 
count future harms. But they also routinelyfai I to account for the way 
technological and societal change will render forecasts of the distant 
future useless. This latter error is especial ly prevalent in the-envi ron 
mental real m, where predict ions of impending resource scarcity and 
civi I izational col lapse have been made frequentlyand proven wrong 
with equal frequency. 

“Alarmed” analysts also complain that cl imate change is difficul to 
communicate because it is too abstract or too far removed frem ev 
eryday concerns. But at least compared to most worrying problems, 
c I i mate change is h igh I y accessi b I e. At t he conceptua I I eve I, envif onmen 
tal calamity-especial Iy one purportedly caused by malfeasafKtas 
been a subject of fascination for the human psyche since the begin 
ningof recorded history. Mo re tactical I y, every natural disaster, ext reme 

129 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005689-00015 



National Affairs • Winter 2017 

temperature reading, and even geopol itical event has become an excuse 
to tal k about cl imate changeeither by claiming a potential I ink, or 
else by asserting that it representsthe kind of incident that wi 11 become 
more common. Peoplewho understand these events to be an endless 
rush of “signals” would understandably but i r rational I y elevate cl imate 
change above other worrying problems, even as the majority correctly 
tunes out most of the speculation as me re noise. 

Perhapsmost important, motivated reasoning might playa role.The 
typical claim holds that, because peopledo not I ike the proposed so 
I utions to cl imate change, they prefer to minimize the extent of the 
p rob I em. Bu t i t a I so seems to be t he peop I e most enamo red of t hose po I 
icies who consider cl imate change uniquely demanding of the wor Id’s 
attention. If they are wrong, it might be in part thei r enthusiasm for a 
government-ledgreen agenda that has led them astray. Notably, thei r 
emphasison addressing cl imate change has fa I len by the wayside when 
faced with pol icy opt ions-nuclear power, fracking in China, carbon 
taxes offsetby tax cuts, renewablefaci I ities in envi ronmental lysensi 
tive areas-that demand t radeoffswith thei r other priorities. In 2016, 
for instance, activists in Washington state opposed a statewide carbon 
tax part ly because its revenue would not beset aside for “necessary in 
vestments in our communities” and because tax supporters were not 
“ I istening to communities of color.” 

“Global warming,” they wrote, “does not just represent an-inter 
section of some of the most pressing cha I lengesof our t-mefealso 
representsour opportunity to address these core issues.” 

A moredispassionateplacementof climatechangealongsidea range 
of wor rying problems does not mean there is nothing to wor ry about. 
But it pointsawayfronav/gener/smitigationat al I costs and towardan 
existing model for addressingproblemsthrough research, preparation, 
and adaptation. It suggests that analytical exercises that would never 
be applied to other worrying problems, I ike assigning a “social cost” to 
each marginal unit of carbon-dioxideemissions,areas inappropriate 
as estimating a “social cost of computing power” as it brings humanity 
c I ose r to a possi b I esi ngu I a r i ty,o r a “socia I cost of i n ter nat iona 11 rave I ” as 
it elevatesthe risk of aglobal pandemic. Taxes on any of them arecloser 
to pol itical statements than efficientor rectionsof genuine external i 
ties, and each would be more likely tostal I meaningful economicand 
technological progressthan to achieve a meaningful reduction of risk. 

130 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005689-00016 



Oren Cass • How to Worry about Climate Change 

Lessons might run in the other di rection as wel I: Weare not-focus 
ing as much on other chal lengesas we should. And perhaps, if cl imate 
change were consigned to its rightful place in the crowd, some addi 
tional attention might beavai lableto concent rateelsewhere. If the level 
of research support, pol icy focus, and international coordination tar 
geted toward cl imate change over the past eight years had gone instead 
toward preventingand managing pandemics, imagine the progress that 
could have been made. For a fraction of the cost of de-car bon izing an 
industrial economy,it could be hardened against cyber attacks; with 
a fraction of the attention corporations pay to thei r own purported 
cl imatevul nerabi I ity,they could make real strides in thei r own-techno 
logical security. 

A little bit of worry provides heal thy motivation. Too much is a rec 
ipefor paralysis, dist raction,and over reaction. 


131 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005689-00017 




SNAPSHOT March 21, 2017 Climate Change 


The Problem With Climate 
Catastrophizing 

The Case for Calm 

By Orm Cass 


C limate change may or may not bear responsibility for the flood on last night’s 

news, but without question it has created a flood of despair. Climate researchers 
and activists, according to a 2015 Esquire feature, “When the End of Human 
Civilization is Your Day Job,” suffer from depression and PTSD-like symptoms. 
In a poll on his Twitter feed, meteorologist and writer Eric Holthaus found that nearly 
half of 416 respondents felt “emotionally overwhelmed, at least occasionally, because of 
news about climate change.” For just such feelings, a Salt Lake City support group 
provides “a safe space for confronting” what it calls “climate grief.” 

Panicked thoughts often turn to the next generation. “Does Climate Change Make It 
Immoral to Have Kids?” pondered columnist Dave Bry in The Guardian in 2016. “[I] 
think about my son,” he wrote, “growing up in a gray, dying world—walking towards 
Kansas on potholed highways.” Over the summer, National Public Radio tackled the 
same topic in “Should We Be Having Kids In The Age Of Climate Change?” an interview 
with Travis Rieder, a philosopher at Johns Hopkins University, who offers “a 
provocative thought: Maybe we should protect our kids by not having them.” And 
Holthaus himself once responded to a worrying scientific report by announcing that he 
would never fly again and might also get a vasectomy. 

Such attitudes have not evolved in isolation. They are the most intense manifestations of 
the same mindset that produces regular headlines about “saving the planet” and a level 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005690-00001 











of obsession with reducing carbon footprints that is otherwise reserved for reducing 
waistlines. Former U.S. President Barack Obama finds climate change “terrifying” and 
considers it “a potential existential threat.” He declared in his 2015 State of the Union 
address that “no challenge—no challenge—poses a greater threat to future generations.” 
In another speech offering “a glimpse of our children’s fate,” he described “Submerged 
countries. Abandoned cities. Fields that no longer grow. Political disruptions that trigger 
new conflict, and even more floods of desperate peoples.” Meanwhile, during a 
presidential debate among the Democratic candidates, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders 
warned that “the planet that we're going to be leaving our kids and our 
grandchildren may well not be habitable.” At the Vatican in 2015, New York Mayor Bill 
de Blasio shared his belief that current policy will “hasten the destruction of the earth.” 






' • 












pn 






A boy flies his kite on dry and cracked farmland in San Juan town, Batang as province, south of Manila, 
April 18, 2010 . 

ROMEO RANOCO / REUTERS 


And yet, such catastrophizing is not justified by the science or economics of climate 
change. The well-established scientific consensus that human activity is causing the 
climate to change does not extend to judgments about severity. The most 
comprehensive and often-cited efforts to synthesize the disparate range of projections 
for instance, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005690-00002 







and the Obama administration’s estimate of the “Social Cost of Carbon”— 
consistently project real but manageable costs over the century to come. To be sure, 
more speculative worst-case scenarios abound. But humanity has no shortage of worst 
cases about which people succeed in remaining far calmer: from a global pandemic to 
financial collapse to any number of military crises. 

What, then, explains the prevalence of climate catastrophism? One might think that the 
burgeoning field of climate psychology would offer answers. But it is itself a bastion of 
catastrophism, aiming to explain and then reform the views of anyone who fails to grasp 
the situation’s desperate severity. The Washington Post offers “the 7 psychological 
reasons that are stopping us from acting on climate change.” Columbia University’s 
Center for Research on Environmental Decisions introduces its guide to “The 
Psychology of Climate Change Communication” by posing the question:“Why Aren’t 
People More Concerned About Climate Change?” In its 100-page report, the American 
Psychological Association notes that “emotional reactions to climate change risks 
are likely to be conflicted and muted,” before considering the “psychological reasons 
people do not respond more strongly to the risks of climate change.” The document does 
not address the possibility of overreaction. 

Properly confronting catastrophism is not just a matter of alleviating the real suffering 
of many well-meaning individuals. First and foremost, catastrophism influences public 
policy. Politicians regularly anoint climate change the world’s most important problem 
and increasingly describe the necessary response in terms of a mobilization not seen 
since the last world war. During her presidential campaign, Democratic candidate 
Hillary Clinton promised a “climate map room” akin to Roosevelt’s command center for 
the global fight against fascism. Rational assessment of cost and benefit falls by the 
wayside, leading to questions like the one de Blasio posed in Rome: “How do we justify 
holding back on any effort that may meaningfully improve the trajectory of climate 
change?” 

Catastrophism can also lead to the trampling of democratic norms. It has produced calls 
for the investigation and prosecution of dissenters and disregard for constitutional 
limitations on government power. In The Atlantic, for example, Peter Beinart offered 
climate change as his first justification for an Electoral College override of the election of 
Donald Trump as U.S. president. The Supreme Court has taken the unprecedented 
step of halting implementation of the Clean Power Plan, Obama’s signature climate 
policy, before a lower court even finished considering its constitutionality; his law- 
school mentor, professor Larry Tribe, likened the “power grab” of his star pupil’s plan to 
“burning the Constitution.” 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005690-00003 



The alternative to catastrophism is not complacency but pragmatism. Catastrophists 
typically condemn tracked natural gas because, although it results in much lower 
greenhouse-gas emissions than coal, it does not move the world toward the zero- 
emissions future necessary to avert climate change entirely. Yet fracking has done more 
in recent years to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions in the United States than all 
renewable energy investments combined. It has boosted U.S. economic growth as well. 

The idea that humanity might prepare for and cope with climate change through 
adaptation is incompatible with catastrophists’ outlook. Yet if the damage from climate 
damage can be managed, anticipating challenges through research and then investing in 
smart responses offers a more sensible path than blocking the construction of pipelines 
or subsidizing the construction of wind turbines. Catastrophists countenance progress 
only if it can be fueled without carbon-dioxide emissions. Yet given the choice, bringing 
electricity to those who need it better insulates them from any climate threat than does 
preventing the accompanying emissions. 

The cognitive fault lines separating catastrophists from others cause both sides to reach 
radically different conclusions from the same information. Catastrophists assume that 
their interpretation is correct, and so describe other thinking as distorted. But if the 
catastrophists have it wrong, perhaps the distortions are theirs. 

CLIMATE CHANGE COSTS 

A strong scientific consensus holds that human activity is producing climate change. But 
from that starting point, scientists have produced a range of estimates in response to a 
variety of complicated questions: How quickly will greenhouse gases accumulate in the 
atmosphere? What amount of warming will any given accumulation cause? What effect 
will any given level of warming have on ecosystems and sea levels and storms? What 
effect will those changes in the environment have on human society? The answers to all 
of these questions are much debated, but broad-based efforts to synthesize the best 
research in the physical and social sciences do at least offer useful parameters within 
which to assess the nature of the climate threat. 

On scientific questions, the gold-standard summary is the Assessment Report created 
every few years by thousands of scientists under the auspices of the United Nations’ 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). By averaging widely varying 
projections and assuming no aggressive efforts to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, 
they estimate an increase of three to four degrees Celcius (five to seven degrees 
Fahrenheit) by the year 2100. The associated rise in sea levels over the course of the 
twenty-first century, according to the IPCC, is 0.6 meters (two feet). 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005690-00004 



Most of the rise in sea levels results not from melting glaciers, but from the thermal 
expansion of ocean water as it becomes warmer. Melting ice from Greenland and 
Antarctica, which may eventually threaten a dramatic increase in sea levels, will barely 
begin in this century—in the IPCC analysis, the Antarctic ice sheet will have almost no 
effect and may even slow sea level rise as increased precipitation adds to its snowpack. 
Meanwhile, melting from Greenland’s ice sheet will contribute 0.09 meters (3.5 inches). 
In fact, “the near-complete loss of the Greenland ice sheet,” which could raise sea levels 
by seven meters, the IPCC reports, “would occur over a millennium or more.” 

What about ecology? Predicting or quantifying damage to vulnerable ecosystems and 
specific species is notoriously difficult, but the IPCC offers a helpful heuristic for the 
likely magnitude of damage from climate change: “With 4°C warming, climate change is 
projected to become an increasingly important driver of impacts on ecosystems, 
becoming comparable with land-use change.” In other words, the impact should be 
similar to that which human civilization has imposed on the natural world already. 
Substantial and tragic, to be sure; but not something that modern society deems 
intolerable or a threat to human progress. 

Economic tools called “integrated assessment models” attempt to convert the potential 
effects of climate change—on sea level and ecosystems, storms and droughts, 
agricultural productivity, and human health—into tangible cost estimates. This exercise 
is as much art as science, but it represents the best available exploration of how the 
impacts of climate change will likely stack up against society’s capacity to cope with 
them. Three of these models form the basis of the Obama administration’s analysis of 
the “Social Cost of Carbon”— the U.S. government’s official estimate of how much 
climate change will cost and thus what benefits come from combatting it. Economists 
and policymakers who want to place a price (that is, a tax) on carbon-dioxide emissions 
to force emitters to pay for potential damage resulting from climate change typically 
embrace the analysis as well. 

According to the assessment models, a warming of three to four degrees Celcius by 2100 
will cost the world between one and four percent of global GDP in that year. To put the 
high end of that range concretely, the Dynamic Integrated Climate-Economy (DICE) 
model developed by economics professor William Nordhaus at Yale University estimates 
that in a world without climate change, the global economy’s GDP would grow from $76 
trillion in 2015 to $510 trillion in 2100 (an annual growth rate of 2.3 percent). A rise in 
temperatures of 3.8 degrees Celcius would cost 3.9 percent of GDP ($20 trillion) that 
year, effectively reducing GDP to $490 trillion. 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005690-00005 





A man wears a polar bear costume and holds a banner with the message, ”Climate Change is 
Unbearable" as he participates in a demonstration near the Eiffel Tower in Paris, France, as the World 
Climate Change Conference 2015 (COP21) continues near the French capital in Le Bourget, December 12, 
2015. 

MAL LANGSDON / REUTERS 

Twenty trillion dollars is a very large number—representing a cost greater than the 
entire annual economic output of the United States in 2016. But from the perspective of 
2100, such costs represent the difference between the world being 6.5 times wealthier 
than in 2015 or 6.7 times wealthier. In the DICE model, moreover, the climate-change- 
afflicted world of 2105 is already more prosperous than the climate-change-free world of 
2100. And because the impacts and costs of climate change emerge gradually over the 
century—0.3 percent of GDP in 2020,1.0 percent in 2050—in no year does the model 
foresee a reduction in economic growth of even one-tenth of a percentage point. Average 
annual growth over the 2015-2100 period declines from 2.27 percent to 2.22 percent. 

To be sure, economic estimates are incomplete. They cannot incorporate the inherent 
value to a community of remaining in its ancestral lands or any obligation humanity 
might have to protect other species and habitats. Even within the economic sphere, the 
assessment models depend on subjectively chosen inputs and averages across disparate 
forecasts; they rest atop numerous other models, each with their own subjectively 
chosen inputs and averages. Among the three models the Obama administration picked 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005690-00006 
























for its analysis alone, the range of outputs is enormous: the DICE model’s four percent- 
of-GDP estimate is near the 95th percentile of the projections from the middle-case 
model, while the low-case model’s one percent-of-GDP estimate is below the middle- 
case’s 5th percentile. But nowhere is catastrophe to be found. 

Limitations and all, such estimates remain the best available. Further, the shortcomings 
of the integrated assessment models have little to do with their lack of support for 
catastrophism. The gap between what the models describe and what catastrophists fear 
does not emerge because the models disregard the heritages of indigenous cultures or 
the intangible value of every species. Nor do catastrophists disagree with particular 
inputs or outputs, expecting that tweaks to certain assumptions might validate their 
views. Rather, the societal collapse that catastrophists envision—one that poses an 
“existential” threat beyond the scope of other human problems, one that makes 
procreation an ethically dubious proposition—is simply irreconcilable with the outlook 
the science and economics offers. 

Indeed, the logic of catastrophism seems to run backward: from the conclusion that 
significant human influence on the climate must portend unprecedented danger to the 
search for facts to support that narrative. But forecasts on these scales of time and 
magnitude exceed common experience and thus defy intuition, which facilitates 
misinterpretation and frustrates self-correction. Placing the problem in proper 
perspective requires appreciating the long-term costs in the context of the distant future 
when they will arise, distinguishing costs spread over long time periods from those 
borne all at once and, finally, applying separate analyses to expected outcomes and 
worst case scenarios. Catastrophists get these things wrong. 

COSTS IN THE DISTANCE 

The power of compounding growth is the most crucial and counterintuitive 
phenomenon for understanding long-term projections. Many first encounter it in the 
tale of the ancient chessmaster who offers to train the emperor in return for one grain of 
rice on the board’s first square, two grains on the second, four on the third—doubling on 
each square through the sixty-fourth. This sounds quite affordable, but the payment for 
the last square turns out to be just over nine quintillion (million-trillion) grains. 

An economy growing by some percentage each year follows a similar trajectory. If GDP 
rises by just three percent per year, the economy will grow almost 20-fold in a century. 
In constant 2009 dollars, U.S. GDP was less than $1 trillion in 1930. Eighty-five years 
later, after growing at an average compounding rate of 3.4 percent, it exceeded $16 
trillion. Eighty-five years from now, even at half that growth rate, U.S. GDP will 
approach $70 trillion. For the majority of the world population, which resides in the 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005690-00007 



developing world and thus starts further behind, progress will likely be faster—more 
closely mirroring the booms in the United States and other now-developed countries in 
the last century. A $500 trillion global economy in 2100 in which most of the world 
approaches the standard of living already enjoyed in the West may sound fantastical. 

But it only requires steady progress. 

The first cognitive fault line separating catastrophists from others emerges here, over 
how to interpret the severity of climate-change damages in a world so radically different 
and more prosperous than our own. The standard narrative holds that most people 
improperly discount or ignore costs in the distant future. To the extent that those people 
are rational, their discounting of future problems must mean that they are immoral. 
“People scratch their heads and say: Why don’t people do what’s right?” remarked 
Harvard geology professor Daniel Schrag in a 2013 lecture. “Well, maybe they’re 
rational. It’s hard to accept. But in fact, maybe they actually don’t value the future as 
much as some of us do. The benefits will go to their children, to their grandchildren, and 
beyond.” 

But what if, rather than not caring about their grandchildren, people have confidence 
that their grandchildren will enjoy a far higher standard of living and have a greater 
capacity to cope with whatever climate change might bring? In purely economic terms, 
both seem likely. Even after accounting for climate change, the DICE model forecasts a 
world 6.5 times richer than today’s for a population only 40 percent larger. Condemn 
mainstream economic estimates as hopelessly optimistic, increase the annual cost 
estimate for 2100 tenfold from $20 trillion to $200 trillion, and the world is still four 
times richer than today. 

The abstract GDP totals represent more than just a hypothetical capacity to absorb 
costs. The concrete implications of this growth will be leaps forward in societal 
resilience and technological capability of the same magnitude achieved in the last 
century. Without predicting the future, analogs from the past indicate the kinds of 
change to expect. In many cases, they address squarely the central concerns raised by 
climate change. 

Environmentalists, for example, have long worried about global population outstripping 
food supply. In 1970, the biologist Paul Ehrlich warned that, due to population growth, 
“at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten 
years.” Instead, a technological revolution caused agricultural yields to surge. Today, 
even as concern grows about potential water crises around the world, the seeds of their 
resolution may be sprouting as well. Israel, suffering from the same drought often 
blamed for helping plunge Syria into civil war, is using desalination technology to make 
the desert bloom. Recently, it found itself with a water surplus. India is constructing 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005690-00008 



more than one million irrigation ponds that will increase agricultural yields by as much 
as 300 percent and buffer against changes in the timing of the monsoon season. 

Continued progress in public health, through new breakthroughs and the transfer of 
best practices to the developing world, will likely ensure that life expectancy and quality 
will continue to increase regardless of how the climate changes. Perhaps climate change 
will increase the range of tropical diseases compared to a no-climate-change world. But 
in absolute terms, the prevalence of and mortality from such diseases should plummet. 
The public health challenges of 2100 will be as distant from today’s as today’s are from 
those of the early 1900s, prior to the development of either antibiotics or vaccines, 
when one in three American deaths were from pneumonia, tuberculosis, or diarrhea and 
enteritis. 

To offer one more example, human infrastructure continues to triumph over the 
challenges and disasters of the natural world. Richer countries experience significantly 
lower fatality rates from natural disasters and also significantly lower damages relative 
to the size of their economies. The World Health Organization reports that in the three 
cyclones of maximum severity striking Bangladesh in 1970,1991, and 2007, total 
fatalities declined from 500,300 to 138,958 to 4,234. The diffusion of existing 
technologies worldwide, and the development of new ones—coupled with 
unprecedented resources for implementation—should ensure that these trends 
continue. 

Incremental improvements in water management, public health practices, and 
infrastructure are a conservative vision of progress. But innovation beyond today’s 
imagination, in directions by definition unpredictable, is likely as well. Robin Hanson, a 
researcher at Oxford University’s Future of Humanity Institute, wrote a well-received 
book called The .Age of Em in which he argued that by 2100, computer simulations of 
humans will dominate an economy that doubles in size every month. James Lovelock, 
the British scientist, has likewise argued that, “before we’ve reached the end of this 
century, even—I think that what people call robots will have taken over.” 

Conversely, if innovation and economic growth stall; if the developing world halts its 
development; if wealthy nations begin to move backward—climate change will be the 
least of humanity’s worries. The world’s economic system of debt-based capitalism, 
predicated on continued growth, would collapse. The political systems built on that 
economic system would collapse as well. In that world, as in the prosperous one, the 
effects of climate change are a marginal consideration. 

At its extreme, the conflation of future impacts with present circumstances produces 
incoherent results. Take, for instance, the EPA’s “Climate Change Risks and Analysis” 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005690-00009 



project. Among its most prominent claims: Unmitigated climate change will cause more 
than 12,000 annual deaths from extreme heat in major U.S. cities by 2100. (The U.S. 
Centers for Disease Control and the EPA report fewer than 500 heat-related deaths in 
2014, a figure that has been on a downward trajectory over the past 15 years). To reach 
12,000 by 2100, the analysis took each city’s mortality rate from extreme heat in 2000 
and applied it to the hotter temperatures forecast for 2100. It concluded that, by 2100, 
the heat in New York City would be killing at 50 times the rate in Phoenix in 2000 (even 
though the New York City of 2100 is not expected to be as hot as the Phoenix of 2000). 

If one believes that residents of New York City will be dropping like flies from heat in the 
future, climate change must seem terrifying indeed. But that is not a rational belief. 

COSTS OVER TIME 

A second cognitive fault line emerges over interpretation of climate change’s slow- 
motion onset. Catastrophists lament this characteristic and blame it for humanity’s 
failure to feel properly alarmed. The frog-in-boiling-water parable is popular here, even 
appearing in A 1 Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth: try to throw a frog into a pot of boiling 
water, and it will leap out; but heat the frog in a pot of cool water, and it will sit there 
until dead. 

The problem is that the parable turns out to be completely wrong. A frog tossed into 
boiling water will be killed or badly injured; one heated up will jump out when it 
becomes uncomfortable. In this, people are something like frogs: the one thing worse 
than a slow-motion crisis is a rapid one. 

In the climate context, even from the vantage point of a prosperous 2100, the sudden 
inundation of coastal cities or disappearance of the monsoon would produce 
civilization-rattling disruptions. “Just imagine, for example, monsoon patterns shifting 
in South Asia where you have over a billion people,” warned Obama in 2016. “If you 
have even a portion of those billion people displaced, you now have the sorts of refugee 
crises and potential conflicts that we haven’t seen in our lifetimes.” Catastrophists 
frequently cite this specter of hundreds of millions of refugees, which offers a vague but 
ominous scenario that might derive from any number of catastrophes and cause any 
number of others. 

But would shifting monsoon patterns displace so many? Remember, growing wealth and 
infrastructure in the developing world will ensure a level of resilience far greater than 
today’s. Of equal importance, gradual challenges invite adaptation: even if fully half of 
global agricultural production must relocate over a century, the required shift each year 
is only 0.5 percent of total production. For comparison, annual additions to global food 
production have averaged more than two percent over the past 50 years. 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005690-00010 



Even stipulating that adaptations will displace hundreds of millions of people, that 
displacement will not happen all at once. Spread over decades, such a disruption would 
look little different from the status quo. China alone currently supports a domestic 
migrant worker population of 278 million. According to estimates by the United 
Nations, there are currently 232 million international migrants. The organization 
projects that the figure will grow by several million each year. By 2050, the World Bank 
estimates that 2.5 billion people will migrate to cities for reasons unrelated to climate 
change. Climate change may thus be among the forces that cause the twenty-first 
century to witness upheavals and migrations on a scale similar to those of the 
nineteenth and twentieth—other forces were on full display in 2016—but that can hardly 
earn it the designation of “unprecedented” or “existential.” 

The costs of climate adaptation can also appear deceptively large if the alternative of 
maintaining the status quo is imagined to be free. But regardless of climate change, 
almost every component of the global economy’s capital base—from city sewers to farm 
silos—will be fully depreciated and will need to be replaced by new investment over the 
next 100 years, both because existing infrastructure will deteriorate and because new 
alternatives will be worth installing. In that way, major coastal cities will be entirely 
rebuilt regardless of whether rising seas threaten them. If people allocating capital—be 
they small-town farmers, resort designers, or mayors—have the information and 
incentives to incorporate climate adaptation into their planning, it need not impose 
sudden and unmanageable recovery costs. 

Recall Obama’s warning: “Submerged countries. Abandoned cities. Fields that no longer 
grow.” The statement actually began with the caveat that it is “a glimpse of our 
children’s fate if the climate keeps changing faster than our efforts to address it.” But 
certainly the climate is not yet changing too fast for society to address. And if societies 
continue to exhibit and build upon the adaptability they displayed in the lastcentury, the 
glimpsed fate will never come to pass. 

Faced with the claim that total climate costs of $20 trillion in 2100 represent an entirely 
manageable burden, the catastrophist might respond that $20 trillion must be 
implausibly low for the extent of disruption climate change might entail. He or she 
might also emphasize that climate change is not a one-time phenomenon: its effects will 
accumulate and compound, striking year after year against societies with a constrained 
capacity to respond. 

But that argument gets the dynamic backward. Although climate impacts may be 
permanent and on-going, costly adaptation—if done wisely—need occur only once. A 
Manhattan properly insulated from rising waters will not require new protection each 
time sea level climbs another foot. Conversely, that hypothetical $20 trillion represents 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005690-00011 



the resources that society might commit to the problem in the single year 2100. In 
Nordhaus’ DICE model, the total allocated to climate costs between 2050 and 2150 is 
more than $2.5 quadrillion, all without ever slowing annual growth by more than one- 
tenth of one percentage point. The world’s productive capacity, bolstered by innovation 
and adaptation over time, is orders of magnitude larger than the demands climate 
change is expected to impose. Such adaptation may represent a tragic long-term drain 
on society’s resources, but that does not mean it will noticeably alter the trajectoiy of 
human civilization. 

COSTS IN THE EXTREME 

To the climate catastrophist, even a credible argument that climate change is 
manageable may offer little comfort. So what if the IPCC’s best guess of sea-level rise by 
2100 is only two feet? Some scenarios contemplate much worse outcomes, and what if 
those come true? 

The Esquire article describes the views of Michael Mann, the climatologist who created 
the famous “hockey-stick” chart used to argue that centuries of climate stability were 
giving way to sharp warming in recent decades. “As Mann sees it, scientists like [NASA’s 
Gavin] Schmidt who choose to focus on the middle of the curve aren’t really being 
scientific.... A real scientific response would also give serious weight to the dark side of 
the curve.” In Mann’s own words: “Maybe it is true what the ice-sheet modelers have 
been telling us, that it will take a thousand years or more to melt the Greenland Ice 
Sheet. But maybe they're wrong; maybe it could play out in a century or two.” 

Catastrophists worry that warming temperatures will set off an uncontrollable feedback 
loop, begetting ever-accelerating warming that leaves the planet uninhabitable; ocean 
currents might suddenly reverse, sending local climates into wild gyrations; unexpected 
ice-sheet dynamics might produce rapid glacial melting that causes sea levels to rise 
rapidly by multiple meters; agricultural yields could collapse, triggering widespread 
famine and conflict. Perhaps. If nothing else, such claims are unfalsifiable. 

But it is difficult to know how to weigh such extreme hypothetical. Emphasizing them 
risks departing the world of empirical research and model-based forecasting for one 
governed by fear. A variety of other long-term challenges with truly existential worst- 
case scenarios already exists, from the archetypical nuclear war to the emergence of 
artificial super-intelligence hostile to humans, to the global spread of an engineered 
pandemic, to coordinated cyberattacks on physical and financial infrastructure. 

Working with a catastrophic mindset and a century-long timeline, one can construct an 
apocalyptic scenario from almost any problem. 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005690-00012 



Here, the third fault line emerges over placement of climate change in broader context. 
Catastrophists see their worries about extreme climate change as unique from, and more 
concrete than, other speculative fears. But when held up for comparison, extreme 
climate change does not justify a special status. In objective terms, the worst case for 
climate change does not even place it among the worst of worst cases. For instance, the 
Global Priorities Project at Oxford observes that climate change could “render most of 
the tropics substantially less habitable than at present,” as compared to the hundreds of 
millions or billions of deaths associated with other challenges. Another Oxford study 
surveyed conference participants about the extinction-level risks of various catastrophes 
and neglected to even consider climate change; respondents gave molecular 
nanotechnology, superintelligent AI, and an engineered pandemic all at least a two 
percent chance of erasing humanity by 2100. 

A climate change worst-case scenario also differs from others in its speed. Although 
genuinely existential threats to civilization might circle the globe in months, days, or 
even minutes, total climate catastrophe unfolds over decades or centuries. One might 
not like humanity’s chances of reversing or coping with such a threat, but the chances 
must be higher than for threats striking hundreds or thousands of times faster. 

These factors place catastrophists in a catch-22. To locate climate-change impacts of 
sufficient magnitude, they envision scenarios that require temperatures to climb 
and dominos to fall across multiple centuries. But extending the timeframe dilutes costs 
faster than it can increase them. No matter how apocalyptic, impacts forecasted 
hundreds of years in the future are inherently less alarming than those under discussion 
for the year 2100. 

Several factors may help to explain why catastrophists sometimes view extreme climate 
change as more likely than other worst cases. Catastrophists confuse expected and 
extreme forecasts and thus view climate catastrophe as something we know will 
happen. But while the expected scenarios of manageable climate change derive from an 
accumulation of scientific evidence, the extreme ones do not. Catastrophists likewise 
interpret the present-day effects of climate change as the onset of their worst fears, but 
those effects are no more proof of existential catastrophes to come than is the 2015 
Ebola epidemic a sign of a future civilization-destroying pandemic, or Siri of a coming 
Singularity. 

Catastrophists express frustration that the diffuse and intangible impacts of climate 
change prevent the threat from receiving sufficient attention—“if global warming took 
out an eye every now and then,” Dan Gilbert, professor of psychology at Harvard 
University, wrote in 2006, “OSHA would regulate it into nonexistence.” But as 
compared to other long-term challenges, claims of climate impact appear constantly. 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005690-00013 



Natural disasters, extreme temperatures, and even geopolitical events find 
themselves linked to discussions of climate change or, if no link is available, cited as the 
kind of thing climate change might make more common. Greater obsession with climate 
change produces more coverage of it, stoking greater obsession. Meanwhile, arguments 
against catastrophism rarely reach the audience that might benefit most from hearing 
them. 

Finally, “motivated reasoning” likely plays a role. A charge issued frequently by 
catastrophists is that anyone expressing inadequate concern must be avoiding the 
problem because he dislikes the consequences of taking action—bigger government, 
more regulation, less growth. But this presumably cuts both ways. The policy agenda 
and social outlook demanded by the catastrophist perspective tends to align closely with 
the pre-existing preferences of catastrophists. Perhaps tellingly, when proposals arise 
that are less to their liking—nuclear power and tracked natural gas as substitutes for 
coal, carbon taxes paired with other tax cuts, use of conservation land for renewable 
power, research on geo-engineering—the overriding imperative to address climate 
change has tended to fall by the wayside. 

COSTS TO CREDIBILITY 

The errors of today’s climate catastrophists repeat those made by the last generation of 
environmental doomsayers. As Paul Romer, the chief economist of the World Bank, 
recently observed: 

During the 1970s, the Club of Rome famously argue d that our economic 
system was on the verge of collapse because we were running out of fossil 
fuel. This analysis was flawed not simply because it got the magnitudes 
wrong. It got the signs wrong. The problem facing the world is not that 
the earth’s crust contains too little fossil fuel and that we won’t have 
enough innovation to solve this problem. The real problems are that the 
earth’s crust contains far too much fossil fuel and that too much 
[innovation] is making this problem much worse. 

In other words, even though the Club of Rome was wrong in the 1970s, Romer believes 
its broader perspective should be embraced. Seemingly oblivious to the irony, he 
attributes the failure last time around to “an instance of motivated reasoning. Advocates 
seem to have been too eager to generate a sense of pessimistic urgency.” 

Schrag, the Harvard geology professor, is even more blunt. Reflecting on Ehrlich’s 
predictions of eminent mass starvation in the 1970s, Schrag acknowledges that “none of 
his predictions came true.” Nevertheless, says Schrag, “It’s quite amazing that we’re 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005690-00014 



actually able to feed the world at all. Ehrlich wasn’t wrong in ’68, he’s just wrong today.” 
In this view, the catastrophist is not accountable for considering how growth, 
innovation, and adaptation might avert catastrophe. But Ehrlich was indeed wrong in 
1968, for the same reasons his intellectual heirs are likely wrong about climate change 
today. 

Some catastrophists do acknowledge, at least implicitly, the limits of their case. 
Unfortunately, this leads them to demand the creation of new evidence. Nicholas Stern, 
lead author of the United Kingdom’s climate assessment, wrote recently in Nature: “The 
next IPCC report needs to be based on a much more robust body of economics 
literature, which we must create now. It could make a crucial difference.” Stern 
expressed concern that the current generation of economic models fails to adequately 
account for the risk of shocks “such as the thawing of permafrost, release of methane, 
and other potential tipping points,” or of social costs “such as widespread conflict as a 
result of large-scale human migration to escape the worst-affected areas.” 

Dave Roberts, whose TedX presentation entitled “Climate Change Is Simple” warns of 
“Hell on Earth” by 2100, suggests that the integrated assessment models should use 
surveys of “expert opinion” to produce “better, more representative modeling.” But the 
DICE model, as an example, already incorporates such a survey. Undoubtedly, new 
models designed to vindicate the catastrophists’ perspective will soon emerge. But 
perhaps the existing models are saying something very important about the nature of 
human progress and long-term challenges that catastrophists need to hear. 

Or perhaps they hear more than they let on. Obama catastrophized in speeches, but 
seldom when the prospect of a follow-up question loomed. Pressed by New York 
Times reporter Mark Landler whether he “believe[s] the threat from climate change is 
dire enough that it could precipitate the collapse of our civilization,” Obama relied on 
his legalistic rather than rhetorical gifts: “Well, I don’t know that I can look into a crystal 
ball and know exactly how this plays out. But what we do know is that historically, when 
you see severe environmental strains of one sort or another on cultures, on civilizations, 
on nations, that the byproducts of that are unpredictable and can be very dangerous.” 
True enough—and the same could be said for a whole host of other challenges. For 
instance, try replacing Obama’s phrase “severe environmental strains” with “strains of 
militant religious extremism.” 

As for Bry, the newspaper columnist; Rieder, the philosophy professor; and Holthaus, 
the meteorologist? They each decided to have kids after all. | 5 l 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005690-00015 




17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005691-00001 








































































































T. J. KIRKPATRICK/BLOOMBERG VIA GETTY IMAGES 


Sett Pruitt durirghiscmfitrmtioi (wring t bad tivEn/iturrmta! Rc&ticn /Agency; £nuaiy 18, 2017 


Who’s The 




Now? 



BY O REN C ASS 

T he epithet “climate denier,” intended to invoke Holo caustve’re going to be leaving our kids and our grandchildren may 
denial, has always been tasteless and inapt. Cli mate well not be habitable,” he was not laughed off the stage, 
change is not like the Holocaust, nor is questioning the Often, the politicians and pundits targeted with the “denier” 
accuracy and predictive power of a scientific model like label did deserve blame. Ignoring the best available scientific 
questioning the historical fact of a genocide that murdered 6 mil- research—an obvious starting point in any other policy debate— 
lion Jews. But climate activists delighted in defining their opposi-was irresponsible or dishonest. Their arguments rarely emerged 
tion this way, with help from prominent figures such as Barack from any valuable scientific insight, but usually from a fear that 
Obama, who in 2014 used Twitter to condemn “climate change acknowledging the scientific basis of climate change would 
deniers” and promote a website, run by Organizing for Action (fomiean accepting radical and costly responses. This was doubly 
merly Obama for America), that featured large black-and-white counterproductive: Not only did it grant by default a mainstream 
pictures of then—House speaker John Boehner and Senator Marco foothold to outlandishly over blown climate fears, but also it side- 
Rubio atop a green “Climate Change Deniers” banner. “On cli- lined and undermined more important and compelling policy- 
mate,” asked the site’s headline, “whose side are you on?” based objections to the activist agenda. 

For a while, this seemed to work. Framing the climate debate as And then a funny thing happened: “Denial” gave way to those 
one between noble keepers of the scientific flame and people akinmore reasoned arguments. Perhaps the accumulation of scientific 
to Nazis gave the former group license to say almost anything. Toevidence changed minds. Perhaps it was only the political reality 
the casual observer, even the most egregious exaggeration about that sank in. Regardless, opponents of aggressive climate policy 
climate science could seem reasonable compared with its outright mostly stopped questioning whether the climate was warming 
rejection. Thus, Obama’s assertion in his 2015 State of the Union and whether human activity played a role—the two points of 
address that “no challenge—no challenge—poses a greater threat agreement that define the famous “97 percent consensus” of cli- 
to future generations than climate change” became widely accept-mate scientists—and started explaining why that consensus did 
ed. When Senator Bemie Sanders warned during a presidential not justify costly and ineffective policies, 
debate that “the scientific community is telling us that if we do This shift in focus from the basic science of climate change to 
not address the global crisis of climate change . . . the planet that its public-policy implications has been a disaster for climate 

activists, exposing the flabbiness at the core of their position. 

Mr ; CsBSbasmbr^hA/d^h/kM^i institute Softened by years of punching down at their opponents’ worst 


NATIONAL REVIEW 23 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005691-00002 








arguments, they became addicted to asserting that “science says tweeted, “#Pruitt on #climate: ‘Science tells us climate is chang- 
so,” and they are now lost when it doesn’t. mg’ but says extent of human role is up for debate. False.” In her 

When Sanders, back in the Senate, questioned Oklahoma attor- accompanying story, she reported that Pruitt’s views were “not 
ney general Scott Pruitt during the latter’s confirmation hearing consistent with the scientific consensus” as reflected by the 
to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, it was the inter- U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 
rogator who couldn’t keep his facts straight. Pruitt asserted that What does the IPCC actually say? While it is “extremely likely 
“the climate is changing, and human activity contributes to that that human activities caused more than half of the observed 
in some manner,” explaining that he had inserted the caveat (“in increase in [temperature] from 1951 to 2010,” the attribution for 
some manner”) because “the ability to measure, with precision, the approximately 0.6°C of warming requires wide ranges that 
the degree of human activity’s impact on the climate is subject to are “likely” to be accurate: between 0.5 and 1.3°C for greenhouse 
more debate.” Pressed by Sanders, he stated again: “The climate gases, between -0.6 and +0.1 °C for other human activity, and 


between -0.1 and +0.1 °C apiece for natural causes and internal 
variability. For the slower warming observed during the period 
from 1998 to 2012, the IPCC could offer only low to medium 
confidence in its explanation. 

So Pruitt’s comments were not “False.” Indeed, in a later story 
Davenport’s colleague Justin Gillis acknowledged that Pruitt’s 
position was “almost axiomatically true.” But, Gillis argued, it 
remained problematic because 

anybody who did not know better might come away thinking 
there is room to doubt whether humans are the main cause of 
global warming. Mr. Pruitt did not actually say that, of course. 

. . . Mr. Pruitt and the other Trump nominees labored to avoid 
overt denial while signaling to their allies that there is enough 
doubt to justify inaction on emissions or even rolling back steps 
the Obama administration took. 

This is the crux of the matter. Statements about climate change 
are no longer being policed for their accuracy, but rather for the 
degree to which they help or harm the activist agendas Atlantic 
explains that “the new climate denial is like the old climate denial” 
because “both are excuses for inaction.” Why didn’t Sanders ask 
Pruitt the obvious follow-ups: “Do you see that lack of precision 
as relevant to the policy choices facing us?” or “Of course, science 
is always subject to imprecision, but do you believe we should 
take action to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions?” Sanders didn’t 
ask these questions because he had no interest in discussing cli¬ 
mate policy, where his own ideas make no sense (including, for 
instance, banning nuclear power and “bringing climate deniers to 
justice”). His position rests on the fiction that scientists unani¬ 
mously agree, and that is where he must make his stand. 

Pruitt’s emphasis on the difficulty of measuring, “with preci¬ 
sion, the degree of human activity’s impact” also crosses a red line 
for activists, because the precision with which climate models can 
describe what is happening links directly to the precision with 
which they can describe what will happen. If scientists do not 
know exactly how the climate system is behaving now, we might 
accord less weight to their projections into the distant future. 

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson hit that tripwire in his own con¬ 
firmation hearing when he said: “The increase in the greenhouse- 
gas concentrations in the atmosphere acecfl having an effect; our 
surveyed by NYU’s Institute for Pol i cy Integrity in 2015 believe&bility to predict that effect is very limited.” Professor Katharine 
“immediate and drastic action is necessary” on climate change; Hayhoe mocked the claim, suggesting that perhaps it would have 
only 56 percent said that “if nothing is done to limit climate been correct in the 1800s. “In 2017? Not so much.” Professor 
change in the future” it would be a “very serious” problem for the Michael Mann called it “indefensible.” In the Guardian, Dana 


is changing, and human activity impacts that.” 

Pruitt wanted to discuss “the job of the [EPA] administrator,” 
which he noted was “to carry out the statutes passed by 
[Congress].” He also agreed that the “EPA has a very important 
role at regulating the emission of CQ.” But Sanders was deter¬ 
mined to show that Pruitt rejected the scientific consensus, even 
if this meant falsifying the contents of that consensus. 

Sanders claimed that “97 percent of the scientists who wrote 
articles in peer-reviewed journals believe that human activity is 
the fundamental reason we are seeing climate change.” That is 
wrong. A survey-of-surveys published last year Environmental 
Research Letters reported that prior surveys had found 78 percent 
of scientists agreeing that “the cause of global warming over the 
past 150 years was mostly human,” 82 percent agreeing that 
“human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing 
mean global temperatures,” and 85 percent agreeing that “anthro¬ 
pogenic greenhouse gases are the dominant driver of recent 
global wanning.” Of course, even among those expressing 
agreement about the “significant” or “dominant” human role, 
debate would presumably have emerged about whether natural 
factors accounted for 0, 10, 25, or 50 percent. 

Sanders also claimed that “97 percent of scientists who have 
written articles for peer-reviewed journals have concluded that 
climate change is real, it is caused by human activity, and it is 
already causing devastating problems in our country and around 
the world.” As to the devastating problems, this also is false. He 
said “the vast majority of scientists are telling us that if we do 
not get our act together and transform our energy system away 
from fossil fuel, there is a real question as to the quality of the 
planet that we are going to be leaving our children and our 
grandchildren.” Also untrue. 


I n fact, scientists and economists hold widely varying views 
on the costs that climate change has caused and will cause. 
Surveys of scientists rarely address social consequences or 
policy implications. When President Obama tweeted that 
“Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is 
real, man-made and dangerous,” cvciSalon had to acknowledge 
he was wrong to say “dangerous.” Only half of the economists 


United States; only 41 percent believed “climate change is 
already having a negative effect on the global economy.” 

But the New York Timeslvad categorized the Pruitt nomination 
under the heading climate change denial^ albeit without any 
support. So when Pruitt testifi edLimes reporter Cor al Davenport 


Nuccitelli concluded, “Functionally [Tillerson] might not be very 
different than a Secretary of State who outright denies climate 
change.” Maskable s Andrew Freedman warned that Tillerson, 
Pruitt, and fellow Trump nominee Rick Perry had “moved from 
outright climate denial to a more subtle, insidious and risky form.' 


24 


NATIONAL REVIEW 


vwwv.nationai review.com 


MAY 1, 2017 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005691-00003 



But as the IPCC emphasizes, the range for future projections 
remains enormous. The central question is “climate sensitivity 
the amount of wanning that accompanies a doubling of carbon 
dioxide in the atmosphere. As of its Fifth Assessment Report in 
2013, the IPCC could estimate only that this sensitivity is some¬ 
where between 1.5 and 4.5°C. Nor is science narrowing that 
range. The 2013 assessment actually widened it on the low end, 
from a 2.0-4.5°C range in the prior assessment. And remember, 
for any specific level of warming, forecasts vary widely on the 
subsequent environmental and economic implications. 

At least one might assume that reasonable minds could be 
allowed to differ on the ultimate question of how well society is 
likely to cope with the effects of climate change—a political, 
social, and economic question several degrees removed from 
anything resembling a scientific consensus. Not so. I addressed 
these issues in a recen Foreign Affairs ssay, in which I called the 
IPCC “the gold-standard summary,” cited it repeatedly, and 
adopted its estimate that temperatures could rise by 3 to 4°C this 
century. My essay further embraced the Obama administration’s 
“Social Cost of Car bon” analysis and adopted its high-case 
model for economic cost. But the essay argued that the likely 
impact of all this was “manageable” rather than “catastrophic.” 


read the quotes discovered that most of them raised no issues 
with climate science at all. 

In early March, Davenport tried calling Trump appointees 
“skeptics,” rather than “deniers.” But Gillis summarized her 
story, headlined “EPA Head Stacks Agency with Climate 
Change Skeptics,” in a tweet as “Top posts at EPA are being 
stocked with climate-change denialists.” He then acknowledged 
that the conflicting word choices were no accident and that the 
Times “cannot seem to achieve internal consistency about what 
word to use, despite best efforts.” That was awkward, though not 
as awkward as Professor Michael Mann’s testimony before the 
House Science Committee later that month: “I don’t believe I 
called anybody here a denier,” he asserted, “yet that’s been stated 
over and over again. So I’ve been misrepresented quite a bit 
today.” To which Professor Judith Curry, sitting just to his right, 
responded, “It’s in your written testimony.” Sure enough, on 
page 6, Mann referred to “climate science denier Judith Curry,” 
even averring, “I use the term carefully.” 

Activists, so eager to bar the gates to the public square and 
keep their opponents out, have instead locked themselves in. If 
everyone agrees with the 97 percent consensus, and that consen¬ 
sus does not dictate any particular policy outcome, they have 


The president should clean up the embarrassing ambiguity and 
vacuity in his own views. And his administration should make 
clear that it works from mainstream scientific conclusions 


Mann decried it as “#Koch climate denial propaganda.” Eric 
Holthaus, mete orologist and host of the podcast Our Warm 
Regards ,; called it “a master class in modem climate denial.” 


T he scope of viewpoints that constitute “denial” is rapidly 
expanding to swallow all opposition to favored climate 
policies. In Scientific American, blogger Peter Dykstra 
declared “grudgingly admitting the problem while scrambling to 
avoid addressing it” to be a form of climate denial. Writing in 
Rolling Stonq Bill McKibben pathetically attempted to introduce 
the term “Renewables Denial” (“at least as ugly and insidious as 
its twin sister. Climate Denial”) to describe skepticism that wind 
and solar power can meet the world’s energy needs anytime soon 
At stake are the boundaries of debate in our democratic soci¬ 
ety, on an issue that the self-appointed enforcers insist is the 
most important one facing us. The ad hominem “denier” criti¬ 
cism places arguments and their purveyors beyond the pale, 
unworthy of response. Appealing to a purported “97 percent 
consensus” asserts that the question has been scientifically 
answered and policymakers have no business debating it. Such 
rhetorical techniques are wildly inappropriate where science is 
in fact, by its own admission, not settled, and especially where 
science is but one input to a difficult policy question. 

Fortunately, this nonsense is unsustainable. Tflemestried let¬ 
ting people speak for themselves, introducing quotes from twelve 
of Trump’s Cabinet nominees with the summary: “Most of the 
people President-elect Donald J. Trump has chosen for the top 
tiers of his administration have expressed doubt that climate 
change is caused by human activity.” But anyone who actually 


nothing else to say. Perhaps this is for the best. If the extremists 
from both sides become sufficiently marginalized, a reasoned 
policy debate might emerge about the real risks of climate 
change and the cost-effective responses. This would require the 
media to admit that their “denier” terminology has lost all mean¬ 
ing and to attend equally to the scientifically unsupported state¬ 
ments from both sides. 

It would also require a consistent, scientifically accurate mes¬ 
sage from the White House. The president should clean up the 
embarrassing ambiguity and vacuity in his own views. And his 
administration should make clear that it works from mainstream 
scientific conclusions. EPA Administrator Pruitt confused matters 
greatly with comments to CNBC last month that went beyond his 
testimony about “precision” and “debate” and suggested that 
human activity was not the primary cause of recent warming. 
Pruitt had no basis for taking that position, nor does he gain any¬ 
thing from it; even Fox News confronted him. Conversely, an 
accurate statement of the science would only strengthen his posi¬ 
tion in defending the policies he seeks to implement. The more he 
focuses discussion on costs and benefits of EPA actions, the more 
reasonable he will seem—and the more reasonable he will be. 

For now, though, navigating the climate debate will require 
translating the phrase “climate denier” to mean “anyone unsym¬ 
pathetic to the most aggressive activists’ claims.” This apparently 
includes anyone who acknowledges meaningful uncertainty in 
climate models, adopts a less-than-catastrophic outlook about 
the consequences of future warming, or opposes any facet of 
the activist policy agenda. The activists will be identifiable 
as the small group continuing to shout “De ni er!”; the “deniers” 
will be identifiable as everyone else. NR 


NATIONAL REVIEW 25 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005691-00004 



5/31/2017 


Goodbye to Paris | commentary 


Goodbye to Paris 

The sin of being honest. 

By Oren Cass 

A u i te ded cR seTue ceRf Preside t TrumS’s Paris AccRrd i decisiR has bee e SRsure Rf the agreeme t’s 
u derl i g fraud. The activists a d Gu leaders beseechi g him desSeratel tRremai begged the TuestiR What 
sRrt Rf climate club wRuld wa t a member whRcalls its tRSic a “hRa ” a d flatl rejects its SRlic SrescriStiR s? 
O e whRse Srimar SurSRse is gRRd fRRd a d cR versatiR , Rt a substa tive i ter atiR al resSR se tR climate 
cha ge. 

PrRSR e ts R ce argued the had built sRmethi g imSRsi g—“the e duri g framewRrk the wRrld eeds tRsRlve 
the climate crisis,” as Preside t Obama described it, with “bRld” a d “ambitiRns” targets. But the SrRsSect Rf the 
Tuee bee leavi g the table SrRmSted assura ces that SarticiSatiR is reall Ri cR ve ie ce at all. Please, Mr. 
TrumS, just sta fRr dessert□ 

This revised view is clRser tRthe truth. The AccRrd was dRRmed befRre egRtiatRrs ever assembled fRr 

ShRtRgraShs i December i.1.1.11 The were Rt there tRcRmmit each cRli tr tRmea i gful gree hRuse-gas 

reductiR s [father, ever R e submitted their vRlu tar Sledges i adva ce, a d all were acceSted withRut 
scruti . Pledges did Rt have tRme tiR emissiR s levels, Rr were there Se alties fRr falli g shRrt. The 
cR fere ce itself was, i esse ce, a staSli g e ercise. 

Celebrati g the success Rf this cRllatiR cRalitiR , Secretar Rf State JRh Kerr claimed that “ i 1 atiR s i the 
wRrld came tRgether tR submit a Sla , all Rf them reduci g their emissiR s.” That was Rt true. I fact, mRst Rf 
the majRr develRSi g cRu tries, whRse emissiR s will drive climate cha ge this ce tur , Sledged R 1 tR 
cR ti ue with busi ess as usual. 

Chi a cRmmitted tRbegi reduci g emissiR s b 1. 1 .11.} rRughl whe its ecR Rmic develRSme t wRuld have 

caused this tRhaSSe regardless. I dia made RemissiR s cRmmitme t, Sledgi g R 1 tRmake SrRgress R 
efficie c —at half the rate it had SrRgressed i rece t ears. Pakista Rutdid the rest, submitti g a si gle Sage 
that Rffered tR“reduce its emissiR s after reachi g Seak levels tRthe e te t SRssible.” This is a defi itiR Rf the 
wRrd “Seak,” Rt a cRmmitme t. 

Si ce the , the farce has SrRceeded as farces dR Secretar Kerr claimed the AccRrd wRuld u leash clea - 
e erg i vestme t. “It is gRi g tRmRve the marketSlace,” he said, calli g it “a break-awa agreeme t which 
actuall cha ges the Saradigm” a d will “sSur massive i vestme t.” I stead, glRbal i vestme t Slummeted b 
1 Scree ti III cRmSarcd tR 111 , accRrdi g tRBIRRniberg New E erg Fi a ce. The first Tuarter Rf [III] 
saw a Rther [III Serce t decli e versus 1.1.1.1.1 

The vRlu teer Sledges have cRmma ded Srecisel the resSect the deserve. A ASril reSRrt b Transport 
Environment fRu d R 1 three EurRSea cRu tries Sursui g SRlicies i li e with their Paris cRmmitme ts a d 
R e Rf thRse, Germa , has Rw see twR straight ears Rf emissiR s increases. The PhiliSSi es has 
Rutright re Ru ced its cRmmitme t. A stud Sublished b the America GeRSh sical U iR war s that I dia’s 
Sla ed cRal-Sla t cR structiR is i cRmSatible with its Rw targets. All this behaviRr is sRciall acceStable 
amR gst the climate crRwd. O 1 TrumS’s SresumStiR that the agreeme t mea s sRmethi g, a d that cRu tries 
shRuld be fRrthright abRut their cRmmitme ts, is be R d the Sale. 

SRmewhat i credibl , TRdd Ster , the Obama admi istratiR’s lead climate egRtiatRr, tRRk tRthe Washington 
Post tRe Slai that the U.S. cRuld eve revise dRw ward its Rw cRmmitme t tRelimi ate a SRte tial burde . 
“Ik Rw,” he seemi gl bragged, “because I helSed egRtiate that fie ibilit .” CRmSare this tRhis defe seRfthe 
agreeme t whe sig ed, i which he reSeatedl used the wRrd “ratchet” tRdescribe a SrRcess where cRu tries 


https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/goodbye-paris-accord-climate/ 


1/2 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005692-00001 




























5/31/2017 Goodbye to Paris | commentary 

wRuld R 1 stre gthe their cRmmitme ts. But rather tha see the cRcktail hRrr i terruSted, eve that last 
vestige Rf substa ce was flu g RverbRard. 

SRshRuld the U.S. have sta ed Rr gR e? TRTuRte a Rther Rf Preside t Obama’s secretaries Rf state Li‘What 
differe ce, at this SRi t, dRes it make?” FRr the climate, Rt much Rf R e. The Massachusetts I stitute Rf 
Tech RIRg ’s assessme t Rf the agreeme t fRu d that eve Ml cRmSlia ce wRuld R 1 have reduced glRbal 
temSeratures i 1111 h R1 □□ degrees Celsius. 

I stead, the debate devRlved i tRthe ki d R e Rtherwise hears abRut the UN Huma Rights CRu cil, a fRrum R 
R e mistakes fRr a seriRus effRrt tRadva ce huma rights. If Rther cRu tries are gRi g tRsit arRu d discussi g 
the climate, shRuld ’t we at least atte d? This is what Mille ials might call the “FOMO” Fear Rf Missi g Out 
defe se. 

Further, as Ster argued, “withdrawi g frRm the Paris agreeme t wRuld be a stai R the legacies RfbRth the 
Sreside t a d Secretar Rf State.” Other cRu tries “wRuld see withdrawal as a slaS i the face.” But R which 
Sreside t’s legac is Paris a stai ? The CR stitutiR reTuires the Se ate tRratif treaties b a twR-thirds 
suSermajRrit i Sart tRe sure that the U ited States sSeaks with a si gle, cR siste t vRice R the i ter atiR al 
stage. It was Preside t Obama whRRffered the wRrld a u wise cRmmitme t fRr which he gRt Rthi g i retur . 
It was Obama whRrefused tRsubmit that cRmmitme t fRr Se ate aSSrRval because he knew he did Rt have it. 

TrumS ca reverse his SredecessRr’s mistake. Withdrawi g frRm the AccRrd thrRugh a Se ate vRte wRuld make 
clear that Obama shRuld ever have sig ed i the first Slace. It wRuld establish the Srecede t fRr seeki g Se ate 
aSSrRval Rf a such cRmmitme ts i the future. A d if, R behalf Rf Rur cR stitutiR al reSublic a d cRmmR 
se se, we i suit Rther Sart gRers? PerhaSs we ca se d a card. 


https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/goodbye-paris-accord-climate/ 


2/2 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005692-00002 










6/19/2017 


We’ll Never Have Paris | City Journal 


c nr 


EYE ON THE NEWS 

We’ll Never Have Paris 

The climate change agreement was designed as a feel-good, do-nothing program. 

Oren Cass 

June 1 , 2017 


Even before President Trump had completed his announcement that the United States 
would withdraw from the Paris Accord on climate change, howls of disbelief and 
outrage went up from proponents of the agreement. But the critical dynamic underlying 
the 2015 Accord, willfully ignored by its advocates, is that major developing countries 
offered “commitments” for emissions reduction that only mirrored their economies’ 
existing trajectories. Thus, for instance, China committed to reaching peak emissions by 
2030—in line with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory’s prior analysis. India 
committed to improving its emissions per unit of GDP—at a rate slower than that metric 
was already improving. President Obama, meanwhile, pledged America to concrete and 
aggressive emissions cuts that would require genuine and costly change. 

As I wrote in National Review at the conclusion of the Paris conference in December 2015: 

The full scope of the catastrophe will emerge only in the years to come. One of the 
agreement’s few binding provisions is a requirement for countries to gather and review 
their commitments and their adherence to them every five years. Given the caliber of 
the pledges, that promise of review has little value; countries that promised to proceed 
on their existing trajectories will pass with flying colors. But the United States, whose 
commitments far exceed what even the aggressive Obama agenda is expected to 
produce, will be the nation off track. 

! 

Sure enough, a recent headline from Inside Climate News blares, “China, India to Reach 
Climate Goals Years Early, as U.S. Likely to Fall Far Short.” That is, China and India are 


https://www.city-journal.org/html/well-never-have-paris-15231.html 


1/3 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005693-00001 



6/19/2017 


We’ll Never Have Paris | City Journal 


reaching the “goal” of proceeding along their unaltered course, while the U.S. is “falling 
short” of a very high bar. 

One might think this prima facie evidence of the agreement’s folly, but Jonathan Chait 
of New York magazine instead links to it as proof that the Right’s criticism of Paris “has 
proven incontrovertibly false.” Citing data from Climate Action Tracker, he avers that 
“India, which had promised to reduce the emissions intensity of its economy by 33-35 
percent by 2030, is now on track to reduce it by 42-^45 percent by that date. China 
promised its total emissions would peak by 2030—an ambitious goal for a rapidly 
industrializing economy. It is running at least a decade ahead of that goal.” Chait 
concludes, “The factual predicate upon which the American right based its opposition 
to Paris has melted away beneath its feet.” 

However, Climate Action Tracker’s own analysis of India's Paris commitment in 

December 2015 determined, “according to our analysis, with the policies it already has 
in place, India will achieve an emissions intensity reduction of around 41.5% below 2005 
levels by 2030.” India committed to less than business-as-usual, has proceeded with 
business-as-usual, and now wins applause from Chait for beating its worthless 
commitment. It’s easy to slim down to 180 pounds, if you weigh 175 to begin with. 

Likewise, in December 2015, it was Climate Action Tracker’s view that “under a 
scenario with currently implemented policies, Chinese C0 2 emissions are likely to peak 
around 2025. ” The New York Times reports that Chinese emissions may have peaked in 
2014, just as the nation’s leaders were formulating their international pledge. Is it more 
likely that the Chinese inadvertently made a pledge they could meet without trying, or 
that Chait has fallen for a pledge that was formulated such that it would have to be met? 

The giveaway for the Paris charade is the refusal to set baselines. If nations are to hold 
one another accountable for progress on greenhouse-gas emissions, surely they must 
agree on a starting point from which to progress. Yet the framework for Paris pointedly 
omitted this requirement. Countries could calculate their own baselines however they 
chose, or provide none at all. Now, per Chait, the pledges have themselves become 
baselines, and each country receives applause or condemnation in inverse proportion to 
its seriousness. 

Even failing on one’s commitment is acceptable, so long as the right things get said. 

Carbon Market Watch reports that “despite all of the fanfare that went on at the time, it 
seems that there are currently only three European Union countries pursuing climate 

https://www.city-journal.org/html/well-never-have-paris-15231.html 2/3 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005693-00002 



6/19/2017 


We’ll Never Have Paris | City Journal 


policies that put them in line with the agreements made at the Paris Climate Change 
Talks.” Angela Merkel said that she finds the G7’s discussion of climate change “very 
difficult,” but not because her nation’s emissions have risen the last two years. Her 
difficulty arises from those ugly Americans’ unwillingness to keep up appearances. 

Later this week, we will be treated to the spectacle of “a statement backed by all 28 EU 
states, [in which] the European Union and China will commit to full implementation of 
the Paris Climate Agreement”—undoubtedly accompanied by lamentations that the 
United States has disrupted the charade by walking offstage. How the world misses 
President Obama’s enthusiasm for a debating society that delivers no substantive action, 
or even a useful framework for assessing results, only a forum for bashing America. 
Such nerve, our nation has, to excuse itself from that pastime. 


Oren Cass is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. 


Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images 


52 Vanderbilt AvenueNew York, NY 10017 | (212) 599-7000 


https://www.city-journal.org/html/well-never-have-paris-15231.html 


3/3 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005693-00003 



6/19/2017 


National Review Online | Print 


NATIONAL REVIEW 

Don’t Apologize for Being Honest about Climate Change 

A response to Ross Douthat’s lukewarm lukewarmism 

By Oren Cass — June 5, 2017 

Writing about climate change in the New York Times , Ross Douthat describes 
“lukewarmers” as those who: 

accept that the earth is warming and that our civilization’s ample C02 
emissions are a major cause. They doubt, however, that climate change 
represents a crisis unique among the varied challenges we face, or that the 
global regulatory schemes advanced to deal with it will work as advertised. And 
they raise an eyebrow at the contrast between the apocalyptic, absolutist 
rhetoric with which these schemes are regularly defended and their actual 
details, which seem mostly designed to enable the globe’s statesmen to 
greenwash the pursuit of economic and political self-interest. 

Douthat placed himself among the lukewarmers and very graciously referred his readers to 
some of my recent work for a longer discussion of those themes. But his column was also quite 
gracious in conceding two problems with lukewarmism, which instead deserve rebuttal. 

Douthat’s Problem #1: “No less than alarmism, lukewarmism can be vulnerable to cherry- 
picking and selection bias, reaching for any piece of evidence — and when you’re dealing 
with long-term trends, there’s a lot of evidence to choose from — that supports its non- 
catastrophic assumptions, even if the bulk of the data starts to point the other way.” 

This is a generic critique that might apply to any position on any issue. School-choice advocacy 
is vulnerable to cherry-picking and selection bias, as is support for universal pre-K. So are the 
claims that Scandinavian-style welfare states are good or bad for innovation and economic 
growth. And the claims that an interventionist U.S. foreign policy promotes or harms our 
national interest. Highlighting such a complaint about lukewarmism would make sense only if 
the position were uniquely reliant on such bad behavior. 


http://www. nati onal revi ew.com/node/448316/print 


1/3 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005694-00001 






6/19/2017 National Review Online | Print 

To the contrary, the key hypothesis (of my work, anyway) is that even working from the 
mainstream scientific and economic studies advanced by alarmists , the data do not support a 
conclusion of catastrophe. That is, the effects identified by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel 
on Climate Change are serious but manageable. The economic costs identified by the Obama 
administration’s Social Cost of Carbon analysis are no larger than those associated with a 
variety of other policy issues. 

Of course, plenty of people cherry-pick this or that study in an effort to undermine the 
mainstream conclusions of climate science. But such analysis is unnecessary to a moderate view 
of climate change and, I would argue, often counterproductive. Lukewannism is, or should be, 
about describing accurately the mainstream of climate research and then assessing how well 
human society’s resilience and capacity for adaptation will allow it to cope with the challenges 
we might face. 

Douthat’s Problem #2: “While lukewarmers may fancy ourselves serious interlocutors for 
liberals, we’re actually just running interference on behalf of know-nothing and do- 
nothingism, attacking flawed policies on behalf of a Republican Party that will never, ever 
advance any policies of its own.” 

This mistakes an argument about the nature of the climate problem for one about the ideal 
solution. Lukewannism is an effort to provide much needed perspective and context on the 
climate debate. Importantly, it is a corrective to the outlandish claims of catastrophe, made by 
environmental activists, that bear no relationship to mainstream research — they can hardly 
complain that others are taking the time to point this out. If we want the public to interpret 
correctly the implications of climate change, the correct interpretation should be given a 
vigorous defense. Insisting that policy deliberations begin from an appropriate policy definition 
does not worsen the quality of those deliberations and is not “running interference.” 

Further, climate policies are typically flawed in ways that remain obvious regardless of how 
seriously one takes climate change. Obama’s Clean Power Plan was costly, it was an illegitimate 
expansion of federal power, and it would not have materially affected global temperatures. The 
Paris Agreement was an absurd piece of political theater that disadvantaged the United States 
and endorsed the developing world’s refusal to take serious climate action. These observations 
hold equally well if one is ice cold, lukewarm, or boiling mad. 

But sometimes a firm grasp of the problem matters a lot, and then the lukewarmer’s obligation 
is to apply his conclusions honestly. If someone proposes truly radical solutions that might avert 
climate change at unfathomable cost, lukewarmers should decry the overreaction. Likewise, if 
someone rejects sensible policies that have concrete benefits by rejecting any cause for concern, 

http://www. nati onal revi ew.com/node/448316/print 


2/3 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005694-00002 



6/19/2017 


National Review Online | Print 


lukewarmers should insist they be serious. As I wrote for Fox News when Trump signed his 
executive order on the topic, “ Trump Is Wrong on Climate Change ”: 

We should want government planners at every level to take the best existing 
research into account as they make public investments and set policy that will 
influence others. If farmers and resort owners and mayors and naval planners 
all build with an eye toward how the future might change, then those changes 
as they arrive won’t be so harmful or expensive. 

Yet, in addition to starting the repeal of costly mitigation efforts like Obama’s 
Clean Power Plan, Trump’s executive order entirely erases an Obama order 
aimed at “preparing the United States for the impacts of Climate Change.” 

Many of the points in that program still make sense. Perhaps the greatest 
mistake made by those who overinflate the risk of climate change is to forget 
that our society has a tremendous capacity to adapt and innovate. But it would 
also be a major mistake to forget that public policy can either foster or hinder 
that process. 

Certainly, that’s no comprehensive agenda. But it is a message that the politicians and 
policymakers of both parties would benefit from hearing. 

READ MORE: 

The Fanatical Prophet of Climate-Change Doom 

Bill Nve’s Embarrassing Face-Off on Climate Change 

A Top Climate Scientist Blows the Whistle on on Shoddy Climate Science 

— Oren Cass is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. 


http://www. nati onal revi ew.com/node/448316/print 


3/3 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005694-00003 



From: Inge, Carolyn 

Location: DCRoomARN3500/OPEI 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Meeting with ConocoPhillips 

Start Date/Time: Tue 3/21/2017 5:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Tue 3/21/2017 5:45:00 PM 


Notes: 


Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your right as 
you exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 20 minutes prior to the meeting with 
photo IDs to clear Security. 


EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all other 
matters call Robin Kime (202)564-6587. 


Contact: 

Kevin J. Avery 

Manager, Federal Government Affairs 
ConocoPhillips 

325 7 th Street, N.W., 12 th Floor 
Washington, D.C. 20004 
202-833-0914 (Direct) 

202-304-0467 (Mobile) 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005695-00001 



From: Kime, Robin 

Location: I SRI: 1250 H Street, NW, Suite 400 

Importance: Normal 

Subject: Samantha to Attend the ISRI CEO Meeting (10:00 -10:30) 

Start Date/Time: Wed 6/21/2017 2:00:00 PM 

End Date/Time: Wed 6/21/2017 2:30:00 PM 

facts-and-fiqures-fact-sheet---recvclinq.pdf 
ISRI Comments ERA Reg Reform 170515.pdf 


ISRI is hosting a briefing for our 10 largest company’s senior management (CEO, President) to 
better understand what is happening in Washington at the Congressional and agency levels. 
These companies primarily process ferrous (steel) and non-Ferrous (copper, brass, aluminum, 
etc.) metals. However, ISRI represents companies that process other materials such as plastics, 
paper, mbber, electronics, and textiles. Background material are attached. 


Samantha will plan to join the meeting at 10:00 a.m. and give some overview remarks about 
EPA’s work (5-8 minutes) followed by Qs and As. 


The meeting will be held at ISRI’s offices at 1250 H Street, NW, Suite 400. Building security 
will have her name in advance and someone will meet her upon her arrival. 


We will have approximately 10-12 company representatives and ISRI officers (tentative list 
below), 4-5 ISRI staff plus Governor Haley Barbour and 1-2 BGR staff. 


ALTER TRADING 

Jay Robinovitz, President & CEO 
Michael Goldstein, Operations 


COMMERCIAL METALS COMPANY AMERICAS 

Brian Halloran, Director of Recycling 


MANITOBA CORP. 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005696-00001 



Brain Shine, President and ISRI Chair -Elect 


MITSUI STEEL 

Hidemi Takani, General Manager, Ferrous Raw Materials Division 
Masaya Inamuro, Sr VP, Mineral & Metal Resources Division 


SA RECYCLING 

George Adams, CEO 


SCHNITZER STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC. 

Tamara Lundgren, CEO & President 


SIMS METAL MANAGEMENT 

Galdino Claro, CEO 

William “Bill” Schmiedel, President 


UTAH METAL WORKS 

Mark Lewon, President and ISRI Chair 


William H. Johnson 
Chief Lobbyist 
1250 H Street, NW 
Suite 400 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005696-00002 



Washington, DC 20005 
(202) 662-8548 - direct 
(202) 714-4259 - cell 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005696-00003 






































Via electronic mail 


May 15, 2017 

Samantha K. Dravis, Associate Administrator, Office of Policy 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 

Mail Code 1803A 

Washington, DC 20460 

Re: Evaluation of Existing Regulations (EPA-HQ-OA-2017-0190) 

Dear Ms. Dravis, 

The Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc. (ISRI) 1 is pleased to submit these comments on behalf of 
the US-based scrap recycling industry, in response to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) 
notice for public comment on Evaluation of Existing Regulations (EPA-HQ-OA-2017-0190, 82 Fed. Reg. 
17793, April 13, 2017) in support of President Trump's Executive Order 13777, "Enforcing the Regulatory 
Reform Agenda." With a total economic impact in the United States of nearly $117 billion and 
employment of more than 530,000 Americans, the recycling industry is a vital part of the U.S economy. 
However, the U.S.-based scrap recycling industry's significant contributions to both environmental 
stewardship and the country's economic strength are dependent upon government policies that 
understand and recognize these benefits and that promote their growth. It is with this in mind that ISRI 
provides these comments, identifying the following regulations that have negatively impeded the 
continued growth of the industry and are in need of repeal, replacement, or modification: 

• Modification of Subtitles C & D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to 

distinguish scrap commodities destined for recycling from waste destined for disposal. The 
current regulatory deficiencies within 40 CFR §§261.2, 261.4, and 239-259 allow commodity 


1 ISRI is the “Voice of the Recycling Industry," promoting safe, economically sustainable and environmentally 
responsible recycling through networking, advocacy, and education. With headquarters in Washington, DC and 21 
chapters nationwide, ISRI represents the more than 1,200 companies operating in nearly 3,000 locations in the U.S. 
and 34 countries worldwide that process, broker, and consume scrap commodities, including metals, paper, 
plastics, glass, rubber, electronics, and textiles. 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005698-00001 





Samantha K. Dravis, Office of Policy 
EPA-HQ-OA-2017-0190 


- 2 - 


May 15, 2017 


materials destined for recycling to be inappropriately regulated as solid or hazardous waste at 
the federal, states, and local levels, adding additional costs and burdens on the recycling 
industry. EPA should revise these regulations to free scrap commodities destined for recycling 
from solid waste completely, and provide associated guidance to its regional offices and states. 

• The Federal Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP), developed pursuant to the Clean Water Act 
(CWA) regulations at 40 CFR §122, contains provisions, specifically benchmark monitoring, that 
make achieving compliance uncertain and, at best, difficult. This uncertainty and difficulty leads 
to repeated cycles of monitoring, exceedances, and corrective actions and effectively encourage 
frivolous and costly CWA third-party lawsuits. EPA needs to revise the MSGP to account better 
for the unique characteristics of stormwater and to align benchmark monitoring better with the 
performance potential of control measures and wet-weather conditions. 

• The refrigerant management regulations at 40 CFR §82, Subpart F, pursuant to Title VI of the 
Clean Air Act (CAA), need to be revised to require removal of refrigerant from appliances and 
vehicles prior to their delivery for recycling, consistent with the specific language of § 608(b)(1) 
of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. As currently written, the regulations place the burden 
of enforcement on recyclers who accept appliances and vehicles for recycling, contrary to the 
express language and intent of the CAA, thus imposing significant liability, compliance, and 
enforcement burdens on such recyclers. EPA needs to revise the 40 CFR §82, Subpart F 
regulations so that they follow what Congress specifically directed the Agency to do when 
drafting the implementing regulations to the CAA Amendments, requiring prior removal of 
refrigerant from appliances and vehicles delivered for recycling to remove these burdens from 
recyclers. 

• The Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) regulations at 40 CFR §711, pursuant to the Toxic 
Substances Control Act (TSCA), need to be revised to eliminate the current reporting 
requirements for small annual amounts of scrap metal imported for recycling—12.5 or more 
tons per metal per facility, a small amount compared to annual production. Such reporting is 
burdensome and also provides no useful information to EPA. EPA needs to revise the CDR 
regulations to exempt imported scrap metal from reporting. 

• Elimination of Regulatory Conflicts . ISRI asks that EPA's Office of Policy exert greater influence 
on the program offices, including the Office of Land and Emergency Management and Office of 
Air and Radiation, to communicate among themselves during rulemaking about potential 
regulatory conflicts or difficulties across the regulations for which they have responsibility. 
Improving communication across and within the offices will result in better rulemaking and 
better regulations with fewer unintended negative regulatory consequences. 

To provide context for the comments below, ISRI next offers background on the recycling industry. 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005698-00002 



Samantha K. Dravis, Office of Policy 
EPA-HQ-OA-2017-0190 


-3- 


May 15, 2017 


INDUSTRY BACKGROUND 

The recycling industry has long been recognized as one of the world's first green industries, born out of 
the need to recover and conserve valuable resources. From the earliest of times, people recognized the 
intrinsic value of recycling and the benefits associated with using and re-using existing materials to 
create new products. Within the U.S., scrap recycling has a long history, dating back to the late 1600s 
near Philadelphia where a paper mill began using recycled cotton and fiber to make paper, and to 1776 
when Paul Revere advertised for scrap metal of all kinds so that he could manufacture basic metals to 
help fight the War of independence. 

The modern-day scrap industry traces its roots back to the late 1800s when many of our forebears were 
"peddlers," collecting all types of scrap via pushcarts. The industry has evolved dramatically since then, 
such that it now utilizes sophisticated machinery and technology to manufacture specification-grade 
commodities which are critical elements to the health of domestic, as well as global, manufacturing. In 
fact, recyclers today are the first link in the manufacturing supply chain, supplying more than 40% of 
manufacturing's global raw material needs. Last year alone, the U.S.-based scrap recycling industry 
transformed more than 130 million metric tons of recyclable materials into specification-grade scrap 
products sold for productive economic use as feedstock materials by industrial consumers in the United 
States and throughout the world. Those commodities included: 

• 67 million metric tons of iron and steel; 

• 47.2 million metric tons of paper; 

• More than 8 million metric tons of aluminum, copper, and other nonferrous metals; 

• More than 5 million tons of electronics; 

• More than 3.5 million tons of plastic scrap; and 

• More than 122 million tires. 

Rising global demand for scrap also provides a useful critical outlet for our excess scrap supply, with 
between 30 to 40 percent of the scrap processed in the U.S. annually exported to more than 150 
countries around the globe. Since the year 2000, net exports of U.S. scrap have made a positive 
contribution to our balance of trade amounting to more than $210 billion. 

Like other manufacturers, scrap recyclers create jobs, contribute to the tax base, and improve the 
balance of trade. However, unlike most manufacturers, the work of scrap recyclers also inherently 
benefits the environment and helps prevent what would otherwise become solid waste problems. 


COMMENTS 

ISRI requests that EPA review and revise the following regulations promulgated pursuant to the 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Clean Air Act (CAA), 
and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), for the reasons specified below. 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005698-00003 




Samantha K. Dravis, Office of Policy 
EPA-HQ-OA-2017-0190 


-4- 


May 15, 2017 


1. The Subtitle D (Solid Waste) and Subtitle C (Hazardous Waste) Regulations Pursuant to RCRA 
Need to Be Revised to Recognize That Scrap Materials Destined for Recycling Are NOT Solid 
Waste and Should Not be Regulated as Such on the Federal or State Levels 

For decades, scrap recycling has been impeded by varying and evolving interpretations of "solid waste" 
under RCRA Subtitle D (solid waste), especially at the state and local levels, and under RCRA Subtitle C 
(hazardous waste). Such interpretations have inappropriately regulated scrap materials destined for 
recycling as solid or hazardous waste and recycling facilities as solid or hazardous waste facilities, 
layering costly, burdensome and inappropriate requirements on the recycling industry. 

Scrap commodities that are "destined for recycling" 2 should not be defined as "solid waste" under RCRA 
Subtitle D or RCRA Subtitle C, and the recycling facilities that process such products destined for 
recycling should not be considered solid or hazardous waste facilities. 

Currently, the Subtitle C Definition of Solid Waste at 40 CFR §261.2 (DSW) and its Exclusions at 40 CFR 
§261.4, recognize that recycled processed, home, and prompt scrap metal are outside and excluded 
from the definition of solid waste, but do not recognize that unprocessed scrap metal destined for 
recycling is outside the solid waste definition (§261.2) or excluded from it (§261.4). Unprocessed scrap 
metal that is recycled is technically a solid or hazardous waste but exempted from Subtitle C regulation 
at 40 CFR §261.6(a)(3)(ii) 3 . While this situation is tolerable, unprocessed scrap metal destined for 
recycling should be outside and excluded from DSW on its merits, just as recycled processed, home, and 
prompt scrap metal are. 

Most significantly, even if all scrap metal destined for recycling were outside or excluded from DSW 
under Subtitle C, they are not also automatically outside or excluded from statute-based definition(s) of 
solid waste under Subtitle D. In addition, nonhazardous nonmetallic scrap commodities that are recycled 
- including recovered fiber/scrap paper, scrap plastics, scrap textiles, scrap glass, and scrap rubber - 


2 While the EPA has stated that "[t]he statute and the legislative history suggest that Congress expected EPA to 
regulate as solid and hazardous wastes certain materials that are destined for recycling” (72 Fed. Reg. 14176; 
emphasis added), ISRI maintains that scrap materials destined for recycling, such as scrap metal, paper, plastics, 
and glass, are valuable commodities that are not among those "certain materials". "Destined for recycling" means 
that such scrap materials are always handled in a manner that directs them towards or keeps them in the supply 
chain for recycled materials and are not at any time solid waste. 

3 An unfortunate aspect of 40 CFR §261.6 is that it declares that "[hazardous wastes that are recycled will be 
known as 'recyclable materials'." The term, "recyclable materials", is commonly used to refer to scrap materials. 
For this reason, 40 CFR §261.6 should be revised to eliminate this declaration and its use of "recyclable materials". 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005698-00004 



May 15, 2017 


Samantha K. Dravis, Office of Policy - 5 - 

EPA-HQ-OA-2017-0190 

while not subject to RCRA Subtitle C 4 are still subject to RCRA Subtitle D. The persistent misidentification 
of scrap commodities as solid waste under RCRA Subtitle D has led to continual challenges and 
misapplications of state and local laws on the recycling industry, adding additional layers of costs and 
compliance burdens on individual recyclers. 

Unlike the RCRA Subtitle C regulations, the RCRA Subtitle D regulations from 40 CFR §239-§259 have 
neither a process to determine whether a material is solid waste nor any exclusions from solid waste. 
There is no Subtitle D regulatory language recognizing that scrap commodities destined for recycling are 
outside of, or excluded from, the statute-based Subtitle D definitions of solid waste at 40 CFR §§243.101 
and 246.101, among others. These Subtitle C and Subtitle D regulatory deficiencies allow scrap material 
destined for recycling to be inappropriately regulated as solid or hazardous waste at the federal, states, 
and local levels and the facilities handling such scrap material to be regulated as solid or hazardous 
waste facilities, to the detriment of recycling. 

To be clear, recyclable materials (referred to as "scrap" by the recycling industry) are commodities— 
they are not waste. They are highly valuable and tradeable products, produced according to globally 
recognized specifications for purchase by industrial consumers—including steel mills, metal refiners, 
plastic manufacturers, foundries, and paper mills—to meet their raw material needs. Manufacturers 
value the use of scrap for the significant cost and energy savings provided. Recycled materials are 
routinely used as substitutes in place of virgin commodities since they are often less expensive, of 
comparable—if not better—quality, and save energy which are all important factors in in the 
manufacturing process. 

The numbers tell the story... 

• U.S. steelmakers rely on iron and steel scrap—processed from items as diverse as 
automobiles, household appliances, demolished bridges, and old machinery—to make 
roughly two-thirds of the steel produced in the country every year; 

• Recycled copper from items such as old radiators and wire and cable, accounts for more 
than one-third of total U.S. copper consumption; 

• More than half of the U.S. aluminum usage is supplied from soda cans, aluminum siding, and 
other forms of aluminum scrap; and 


4 ‘The definition of solid waste contained in this part applies only to wastes that also are hazardous for purposes of 
the regulations implementing subtitle C of RCRA. For example, it does not apply to materials (such as non- 
hazardous scrap, paper, textiles, or rubber) that are not otherwise hazardous wastes and that are recycled" (40 
CFR §261.1(b)(1)). 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005698-00005 



Samantha K. Dravis, Office of Policy 
EPA-HQ-OA-2017-0190 


- 6 - 


May 15, 2017 


• More than half of the paper industry's needs here in the U.S. are met each year through the 
use of recovered fiber produced from such items as old newspapers, magazines, catalogs, 
office paper, and used corrugated boxes. 

As one can imagine based on these examples - and there are many more - recycling is an important 
economic engine and very much integral to modern manufacturing. This concept was recognized by the 
National Lieutenant Governors Association (NLGA) last year when they adopted A Resolution On The 
Importance Of Recycling And Distinguishing Recyclable Materials As Valuable Commodities That Are Not 
Solid Waste." The Resolution concludes as follows - 

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the NLGA will be an engaged forum for collaboration 
among states to pursue SMM that recognizes the importance of recycling and that 
recyclable materials such as metals , paper , plastic, glass , rubber , and textiles that are 
recycled directly as a viable commercial feedstock or commodity should not be , deemed 
to be solid waste. 

EPA itself acknowledged the distinction between scrap commodities and waste materials almost 15 
years ago, although not in regulation. In 2003, EPA tasked staff to take a futuristic look at the Agency's 
work in the year 2020. Out of that effort came the work entitled, BeyondRCRA. Beyond RCRA makes 
clear that scrap materials are not waste. Along with the recommendation that the Agency move from 
materials control to a materials management focus. As such, it was important not to treat recyclables as 
wastes, but rather manage them for what they are - feedstock for the manufacture of new products. 

The Agency recognized then that with recycling such materials comes avoidance and concomitant costs 
of environmental degradation - the Environmental Protection Agency's primary mission. 

Although published in 2003 during the Administration of President George W. Bush, Beyond RCRA was 
used by the Obama Administration to jump start a serious Sustainable Material Management (SMM) 
program. As EPA understood, in 2003 and beyond, that scrap materials are valuable materials and not 
waste materials there is no reason whatsoever why the Agency should not implement that 
understanding in 2017. The time has come for EPA to acknowledge in its regulations that scrap is not 
waste. 

As such, it is very important that EPA revise its regulations and clearly recognize the distinction between 
scrap and waste, and recycling and disposal, within BOTH Subtitle C AND Subtitle D of RCRA. Somewhere 
within 40 CFR §239-259, EPA needs to recognize that scrap commodities - including scrap metal, paper, 
plastics, glass, textiles and rubber - destined for recycling are outside of and excluded from, the Subtitle 
D definitions of solid waste. And, because Subtitle D is largely delegated to state authorities, EPA needs 
to also provide clear guidance associated with these changes to its regional offices and state authorities. 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005698-00006 



Samantha K. Dravis, Office of Policy 
EPA-HQ-OA-2017-0190 


-7- 


May 15, 2017 


2. The Federal Multi-Sector General Permit, Developed Pursuant to the CWA Regulations at 40 
CFR §122, Must Be Revised to Better Account for the Unique Characteristics of Stormwater 
and to Align Benchmark Monitoring with the Performance Potential of Control Measures and 
Wet-Weather Conditions. 

The Federal Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) contains provisions that make achieving compliance 
uncertain and, in some cases virtually impossible, thus encouraging frivolous and expensive CWA third- 
party lawsuits. Modelled on CWA wastewater permits, the MSGP uses benchmark monitoring to assess 
the effectiveness of implemented control measures specified in the MSGP. Concentrations of 
benchmark constituents (e.g., copper and zinc) measured in grab samples of stormwater discharges are 
compared to benchmark levels. EPA has set benchmark levels much closer to dry-weather water quality 
standards (WQS)for receiving waters (very low) than to stormwater discharge concentrations achievable 
by control measures under wet-weather conditions. This is wholly inappropriate because unlike 
wastewater, stormwater has highly variable flow rates, constituent concentrations, and frequencies of 
occurrence. Discretely measured constituent concentrations of stormwater discharges may not 
accurately reflect the effectiveness of implemented control measures or the actual impact of 
stormwater discharges on the receiving water under wet-weather conditions. This creates a situation in 
which the achieving benchmarks is extremely difficult , if not impossible. It creates a situation such that 
control measures specified in the MSGP, when implemented, will often be insufficient to meet 
benchmarks. This difficulty and uncertainty leads to repeated and costly cycles of monitoring, 
exceedances, and corrective actions with no easy off-ramp from such cycles. 

Another problem with the use of benchmark monitoring within the MSGP is that it is viewed by some as 
an indicator of permit compliance even though it is clearly stated otherwise by EPA; benchmark 

concentrations are not effluent limitations; a benchmark exceedance, therefore , is not a permit 
violation." (2015 MSGP §6.2.1). Benchmark exceedances have been used as "evidence" of permit 
violations in threats of CWA third-party lawsuits against recycling facilities, including those with highly 
performing stormwater control systems. The currently established benchmark levels effectively invite 
CWA third-party lawsuits against recyclers, despite EPA's view that a benchmark exceedance is not per 
se a permit violation. The result has been millions of dollars of costs to recyclers across the country. 

Over the years, we have witnessed increased abuse of CWA citizen lawsuits filed for enrichment rather 
than as the Act originally intended. Many organizations have used publicly available databases to obtain 
information about regulated facilities and threaten to sue them under the CWA simply to extract sizable 
financial "donations" and "voluntary" actions from facilities not otherwise required by law to do so. 
These facilities settle simply to avoid the costs of litigation, while the organizations then use settlement 
donations to repeat the process on other facilities in a vicious cycle that was not intended by Congress. 
These groups are taking advantage of the benchmark levels within the MSGP to inappropriately further 
their efforts. 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005698-00007 



Samantha K. Dravis, Office of Policy 
EPA-HQ-OA-2017-0190 


- 8 - 


May 15, 2017 


It is absolutely necessary for the EPA revise the MSGP to account better for the unique characteristics of 
stormwater and to align benchmark monitoring better with the performance potential of control 
measures and wet-weather conditions. 

3. The Refrigerant Management Regulations Need to Be Revised to Require Removal of 

Refrigerant from Appliances and Vehicles Prior to Their Delivery for Recycling, as Clearly 
Mandated in CAA Title VI, so as to Relieve Recyclers from the Compliance, Enforcement, and 
Liability Burdens of the Current Regulations for Which They Were Never Intended. 

The regulations promulgated by EPA in 40 CFR §82 are in direct contradiction of the clear Congressional 
intent and specific wording found in §608(b)(l) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, and, as a 
result impose significant liability, compliance, and enforcement burdens on recyclers who accept for 
recycling small appliances and vehicles (henceforth, "appliances") that use refrigerants. Contrary to CAA 
Title VI 5 , which calls for removal of refrigerant from appliances prior to their delivery for recycling, EPA 
finalized so called "flexible" regulations more than 20 years ago that ignore the explicit language of the 
statute and have put the industry in the untenable position as both the "enforcer" and the "enforced" of 
refrigerant removal from recycled appliances. These regulations continue to be applied and used as 
enforcement actions against recyclers. 

Section 608(b)(1) required EPA to promulgate regulations mandating that all CFC refrigerants "contained 
in bulk in appliances, machines or other goods [ ] be removed from each appliance, machine or other 
good prior to the disposal of such items or their delivery for recycling." The law contains two extremely 
important concepts: 

1. That recycling is distinguished from disposal; and 

2. That CFC-bearing goods which are being recycled must be evacuated "prior to their delivery 
to the recycler” Congress left no room for interpretation as to who would be responsible 
for the removal of CFCs from such goods. If the CFCs are to be removed prior to their 
delivery for recycling it is clearly the last owner of the CFC containing item prior to that 
delivery who is responsible. 

In fact, these words appear in the CAA Amendments of 1990 because of ISRfs success in convincing the 
Congress that there was no practical way to require scrap recyclers to be responsible for assuring that 


s “Requirements that class I or class II substances contained in bulk in appliances, machines or other goods shall be 
removed from each such appliance, machine or other good prior to the disposal of such items or their delivery for 
recycling” (42 USC §7671g). 


17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA 


ED 001523 00005698-00008 



May 15, 2017 


Samantha K. Dravis, Office of Policy - 9 - 

EPA-HQ-OA-2017-0190 

CFC refrigerant has been removed. Congress understood that automobiles and appliances delivered to 
scrap processors frequently don’t have the physical shape they had when originally purchased. 6 
Congress understood the impracticality of ensuring that each one of thousands of such items handled by 
processors each day has been properly vented and Congress spoke clearly and precisely on that point. 

The regulations promulgated by EPA to implement §608(b)(l) subvert the intent of Congress to insure 
that refrigerant is recovered upstream of the recycling industry. The statute is quite unambiguous, yet 
EPA promulgated regulations that put the burden on the recycler to ensure refrigerant recovery occurs. 
Under these regulations, recyclers must either recover refrigerant from appliances delivered for 
recycling, which was not a provision of CAA Title VI, or verify via signed statements or contracts that the 
supplier ensured removal of refrigerant from appliances prior to their delivery for recycling. If a recycler 
cannot adequately enforce and demonstrate compliance by others (e.g., suppliers of appliances for 
recycling) through signed statements or contracts, that recycler suffers enforcement for failing to do so. 
The penalties are potentially large even for relatively minor paperwork violations. A common outcome 
of enforcement is a settlement with EPA that requires the recycler to implement measures that EPA 
cannot otherwise require the recycler to conduct under the 40 CFR §82, Subpart F regulations, as well as 
a substantial monetary payment or expenditure of some kind (e.g., a supplemental environmental 
project). 

Also, once an appliance is accepted at a recycling facility with the refrigerant properly removed, the 
appliance is still regulated under these regulations until it is completely processed (i.e., shredded or 
melted). These regulations impede the movement of appliance parts that once held or contained 
refrigerant during use (e.g., copper coil and steel compressor) because when these parts are further sold, 
perhaps several times, a signed statement or contract is required between each seller and buyer. This 
creates a paper trail problem with potentially tremendous compliance and enforcement implications 
because each buyer is responsible under these regulations for compliance by every supplier (perhaps 
several) associated with the appliance part and the appliance from which it originated. In such complex 
recycling networks, this is extremely difficult to do. 

To remove these liability, compliance, and enforcement burdens on recyclers, EPA needs to revise the 
40 CFR §82, Subpart F regulations to require prior removal of refrigerant from appliances and vehicles 
delivered for recycling as Congress originally directed the Agency to do. 


6 A recycler wi